Effects of benzoyl peroxide on lipogenesis in sebaceous glands using an animal model

Twelve-week, multicenter, placebo-controlled, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, comparative phase II/III study of benzoyl peroxide gel in patients with acne vulgaris: A secondary publication

A placebo-controlled, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, comparative, multicenter study was conducted to investigate the efficacy and safety of benzoyl peroxide (BPO) gel, administrated once daily for 12 weeks to Japanese patients with acne vulgaris. Efficacy was evaluated by counting all inflammatory and non-inflammatory lesions. Safety was evaluated based on adverse events, local skin tolerability scores and laboratory test values. All 609 subjects were randomly assigned to receive the study products (2.5% and 5% BPO and placebo), and 607 subjects were included in the full analysis set, 544 in the per protocol set and 609 in the safety analyses. The median rates of reduction from baseline to the last evaluation of the inflammatory lesion counts, the primary end-point, in the 2.5% and 5% BPO groups were 72.7% and 75.0%, respectively, and were significantly higher than that in the placebo group (41.7%). No deaths or other serious adverse events were observed. The incidences of adverse events in the 2.5% and 5% BPO groups were 56.4% and 58.8%, respectively; a higher incidence than in the placebo group, but there was no obvious difference between the 2.5% and 5% BPO groups. All adverse events were mild or moderate in severity. Most adverse events did not lead to study product discontinuation. The results suggested that both 2.5% and 5% BPO are useful for the treatment of acne vulgaris.

Combined oral contraceptive pills for treatment of acne

BACKGROUND

Acne is a common skin disorder among women. Although no uniform approach to the management of acne exists, combination oral contraceptives (COCs), which contain an estrogen and a progestin, often are prescribed for women.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of combined oral contraceptives (COCs) for the treatment of facial acne compared to placebo or other active therapies.

SEARCH METHODS

In January 2012, we searched for randomized controlled trials of COCs and acne in the computerized databases of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, POPLINE, and LILACS. We also searched for clinical trials in ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (Aug 2011). For the initial review, we wrote to researchers to seek any unpublished or published trials that we might have missed.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomized controlled trials reported in any language that compared the effectiveness of a COC containing an estrogen and a progestin to placebo or another active therapy for acne in women.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data on facial lesion counts, both total and specific (i.e., open or closed comedones, papules, pustules and nodules); acne severity grades; global assessments by the clinician or the participant, and discontinuation due to adverse events. Data were entered and analyzed in RevMan. For continuous data, we calculated the mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). For dichotomous data, we calculated the Peto odds ratio (OR) and 95% CI.

MAIN RESULTS

The review includes 31 trials with 12,579 participants. Of 24 comparisons made, 6 compared a COC to placebo, 17 different COCs, and 1 compared a COC to an antibiotic. Of nine placebo-controlled trials with data for analysis, all showed COCs reduced acne lesion counts, severity grades and self-assessed acne compared to placebo. A levonorgestrel-COC group had fewer total lesion counts (MD -9.98; 95% CI -16.51 to -3.45), inflammatory and non-inflammatory lesion counts, and were more likely to have a clinician assessment of clear or almost clear lesions and participant self-assessment of improved acne lesions. A norethindrone acetate COC had better results for clinician global assessment of no acne to mild acne (OR 1.86; 95% CI 1.32 to 2.62). In two combined trials, a norgestimate COC showed reduced total lesion counts (MD-9.32; 95% CI -14.19 to -4.45), reduced inflammatory lesion and comedones counts, and more with clinician assessment of improved acne. For two combined trials of a drospirenone COC, the investigators' assessment of clear or almost clear skin favored the drospirenone group (OR 3.02; 95% CI 1.99 to 4.59). In one trial, the drospirenone-COC group showed greater (more positive) percent changes for total lesion count (MD 29.08; 95% CI 3.13 to 55.03), inflammatory and non-inflammatory lesion counts, and papule and closed comedone counts. A dienogest-COC group had greater percentage decreases in total lesion count (MD -15.30; 95% CI -19.98 to -10.62) and inflammatory lesion count, and more women assessed with overall improvement of facial acne. A CMA-COC group had more 'responders,' those with 50% or greater decrease in facial papules and pustules (OR 2.31; 95% CI 1.50 to 3.55)Differences in the comparative effectiveness of COCs containing varying progestin types and dosages were less clear, and data were limited for any particular comparison. COCs that contained chlormadinone acetate or cyproterone acetate improved acne better than levonorgestrel. A COC with cyproterone acetate showed better acne outcomes than one with desogestrel, but the studies produced conflicting results. Likewise, levonorgestrel showed a slight improvement over desogestrel in acne outcomes, but results were not consistent. A drospirenone COC appeared to be more effective than norgestimate or nomegestrol acetate plus 17β-estradiol but less effective than cyproterone acetate.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This update yielded six new trials but no change in conclusions. The six COCs evaluated in placebo-controlled trials are effective in reducing inflammatory and non-inflammatory facial acne lesions. Few important and consistent differences were found between COC types in their effectiveness for treating acne. How COCs compare to alternative acne treatments is unknown since only one trial addressed this issue. The use of standardized methods for assessing acne severity would help in synthesizing results across trials as well as aid in interpretation.

Treating acne with antibiotic-resistant bacterial colonization

INTRODUCTION

Acne is a chronic skin disorder of the pilosebaceous unit; it has a multifactorial pathogenesis. Propionibacterium acnes within the follicle is considered to be a triggering factor of inflammation in acne. Antibiotics have been the primary treatment against P. acnes for more than 40 years. However, a gradual increase in the prevalence of antibiotic-resistant strains of P. acnes has been observed.

AREAS COVERED

This review discusses the pathophysiology of antibiotic-resistant acne development. It focuses on strategies to minimize the development of resistance and, most importantly, confront the development of antibiotic-resistant acne. The literature search was conducted up to August 2010, using the search terms 'acne', 'antibiotic-resistant acne' and 'bacterial resistance'.

EXPERT OPINION

Antibiotic-resistant acne is a real phenomenon. Strategies to prevent and confront it should include not only the use of certain treatment regimens but also rational prescribing policies, combination therapies, use of antibacterial non-antibiotic agents and treatment options targeting all the pathogenetic components of acne. Benzoyl-peroxide-based treatment is the most evidence-based approach. Oral isotretinoin remains the most efficacious option for severe acne.

Combined oral contraceptive pills for treatment of acne

BACKGROUND

Acne is a common skin disorder among women. Although no uniform approach to the management of acne exists, combination oral contraceptives (COCs), which contain an estrogen and a progestin, often are prescribed for women.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of combined oral contraceptives (COCs) for the treatment of facial acne compared to placebo or other active therapies.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched for randomized controlled trials of COCs and acne in the computerized databases of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, POPLINE, and LILACS. We also searched for clinical trials in ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We wrote to authors of identified trials to seek any unpublished or published trials that we might have missed.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomized controlled trials reported in any language that compared the effectiveness of a COC containing an estrogen and a progestin to placebo or another active therapy for acne in women were eligible.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data on total and specific (i.e., open or closed comedones, papules, pustules and nodules) facial lesion counts; acne severity grades; global assessments by the clinician or the participant and discontinuation due to adverse events. Data were entered and analyzed in RevMan.

MAIN RESULTS

The search yielded 25 trials: 7 placebo-controlled trials made 4 different comparisons, 17 trials made 13 comparisons between 2 different COC regimens, and 1 additional trial compared a COC to an antibiotic. COCs reduced acne lesion counts, severity grades and self-assessed acne compared to placebo. Differences in the comparative effectiveness of COCs containing varying progestin types and dosages, though, were less clear. COCs that contained chlormadinone acetate or cyproterone acetate improved acne better than levonorgestrel, although this apparent advantage was based on limited data. A COC with cyproterone acetate might result in better acne outcomes than one with desogestrel; however, the three studies comparing these COCs produced conflicting results. Likewise, levonorgestrel showed a slight improvement over desogestrel in acne outcomes in one trial, but a second trial found the COC groups were similar.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The four COCs evaluated in placebo-controlled trials are effective in reducing inflammatory and non-inflammatory facial acne lesions. Few important differences were found between COC types in their effectiveness for treating acne. How COCs compare to alternative acne treatments is unknown since limited data were available regarding this question.

A current review of topical benzoyl peroxide: new perspectives on formulation and utilization

Benzoyl peroxide (BPO) is the most widely used topical acne treatment, with significant antibacterial, antikeratolytic, and comedolytic activity. It has been shown to be extremely effective as monotherapy and in combination with antibiotics or retinoids for managing comedonal and inflammatory acne lesions. As numerous clinical studies have shown, the combination of BPO plus a topical antibiotic is not only more effective but also is often better tolerated than either agent alone. Unlike antibiotics, no bacterial resistance has been noted. Adding BPO to any long-term antibiotic regimen in acne is generally recommended to help reduce populations of drug-resistant variants. Although effective combinations of BPO and antibiotics or retinoids are used, BPO monotherapy can also be extremely effective in treating mild to moderate acne with no resistance issues.

Expanding the microcomedone theory and acne therapeutics: Propionibacterium acnes biofilm produces biological glue that holds corneocytes together to form plug

The Propionibacterium acnes biofilm has previously been shown to exist via genomic studies and to make a biological glue which allows for adherence to follicular walls. This gylcocalyx polymer secreted by P acnes also finds its way into sebum composition where it causes the adhesiveness of keratinocytes leading to comedones. An appreciation of P acnes biofilms and secretions has implications in immunogenicity of the organism, clinical course of acne, and therapy for comedonal and inflammatory acne.

Combined oral contraceptive pills for treatment of acne

BACKGROUND

Acne is a common skin disorder among women. Although no uniform approach to the management of acne exists, combination oral contraceptives (COCs), which contain an estrogen and a progestin, often are prescribed for women.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of combined oral contraceptives (COCs) for the treatment of facial acne compared to placebo or other active therapies.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the computerized databases of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, POPLINE, Biological Abstracts and LILACS for randomized controlled trials of COCs and acne. We wrote to authors of identified trials to seek any unpublished or published trials that we might have missed.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomized controlled trials reported in any language that compared the effectiveness of a COC containing an estrogen and a progestin to placebo or another active therapy for acne in women were eligible.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data on total and specific (i.e., open or closed comedones, papules, pustules and nodules) facial lesion counts; acne severity grades; global assessments by the clinician or the participant and discontinuation due to adverse events. Data were entered and analyzed in RevMan.

MAIN RESULTS

The search yielded 23 trials: 5 placebo-controlled trials made 3 different comparisons, 17 trials made 13 comparisons between 2 different COC regimens, and 1 additional trial compared a COC to an antibiotic. COCs reduced acne lesion counts, severity grades and self-assessed acne compared to placebo. Differences in the comparative effectiveness of COCs containing varying progestin types and dosages, though, were less clear. COCs that contained chlormadinone acetate or cyproterone acetate improved acne better than levonorgestrel, although this apparent advantage was based on limited data. A COC with cyproterone acetate might result in better acne outcomes than one with desogestrel; however, the three studies comparing these COCs produced conflicting results. Likewise, levonorgestrel showed a slight improvement over desogestrel in acne outcomes in one trial, but a second trial found no difference between the COCs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The three COCs evaluated in placebo-controlled trials are effective in reducing inflammatory and non-inflammatory facial acne lesions. Few differences were found between COC types in their effectiveness for treating acne. How COCs compare to alternative acne treatments is unknown since limited data were available regarding this question.

Topical antibacterial therapy for acne vulgaris

Topical antibiotics and benzoyl peroxide, are the two main topical antibacterial treatments indicated for mild-to-moderate acne vulgaris. Topical antibiotics act both as antibacterial agents suppressing Propionibacterium acnes in the sebaceous follicle and as anti-inflammatory agents. Benzoyl peroxide is a powerful antimicrobial agent that rapidly destroys both bacterial organisms and yeasts. Topical clindamycin and erythromycin have been proven to be effective against inflammatory acne vulgaris in concentrations of 1-4% with or without the addition of zinc. However, none of the antibacterials tested was more effective than benzoyl peroxide, which also has the advantage of not being associated with antimicrobial resistance. Topical antibacterial therapy should be discontinued once improvement is observed. If no improvement is observed within 6-8 weeks, the agent should be discontinued and a therapeutic switch considered. The primary limitation of benzoyl peroxide for some acne vulgaris patients is cutaneous irritation or dryness.Antibacterial therapy can be used in combination with other agents. Combining topical antibiotics and topical retinoids may enhance the efficacy, since the retinoid will improve the penetration of the antibiotic. Combining a topical antibiotic with benzoyl peroxide may increase the bactericidal effect of the antibiotic and reduce the potential for bacterial resistance. Topical and oral antibacterials should not be used in combination for the treatment of acne vulgaris, since this association may increase the risk of bacterial resistance.