Complementary therapies for acne vulgaris

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 9.8 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.

Bioactive Compounds from Medicinal Plants as Potential Adjuvants in the Treatment of Mild Acne Vulgaris

In recent years, there has been a growing interest in the use of medicinal plants and phytochemicals as potential treatments for acne vulgaris. This condition, characterized by chronic inflammation, predominantly affects adolescents and young adults. Conventional treatment typically targets the key factors contributing to its development: the proliferation of Cutibacterium acnes and the associated inflammation. However, these treatments often involve the use of potent drugs. As a result, the exploration of herbal medicine as a complementary approach has emerged as a promising strategy. By harnessing the therapeutic properties of medicinal plants and phytochemicals, it may be possible to address acne vulgaris while minimizing the reliance on strong drugs. This approach not only offers potential benefits for individuals seeking alternative treatments but also underscores the importance of natural remedies of plant origin in dermatological care. The primary aim of this study was to assess the antimicrobial, antioxidant, and anti-inflammatory properties of plants and their phytochemical constituents in the management of mild acne vulgaris. A comprehensive search of scientific databases was conducted from 2018 to September 2023. The findings of this review suggest that medicinal plants and their phytochemical components hold promise as treatments for mild acne vulgaris. However, it is crucial to note that further research employing high-quality evidence and standardized methodologies is essential to substantiate their efficacy and safety profiles.

The relationship of publication language, study population, risk of bias, and treatment effects in acupuncture related systematic reviews: a meta-epidemiologic study

BACKGROUND

There are debates in acupuncture related systematic reviews and meta-analyses on whether searching Chinese databases to get more Chinese-language studies may increase the risk of bias and overestimate the effect size, and whether the treatment effects of acupuncture differ between Chinese and non-Chinese populations.

METHODS

In this meta-epidemiological study, we searched the Cochrane library from its inception until December 2021, and identified systematic reviews and meta-analyses with acupuncture as one of the interventions. Paired reviewers independently screened the reviews and extracted the information. We repeated the meta-analysis of the selected outcomes to separately pool the results of Chinese- and non-Chinese-language acupuncture studies and presented the pooled estimates as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). We calculated the Ratio of ORs (ROR) by dividing the OR of the Chinese-language trials by the OR of the non-Chinese-language trials, and the ROR by dividing the OR of trials addressing Chinese population by the OR of trials addressing non-Chinese population. We explored whether the impact of a high risk of bias on the effect size differed between studies published in Chinese- and in non-Chinese-language, and whether the treatment effects of acupuncture differed between Chinese and non-Chinese population.

RESULTS

We identified 84 Cochrane acupuncture reviews involving 33 Cochrane groups, of which 31 reviews (37%) searched Chinese databases. Searching versus not searching Chinese databases significantly increased the contribution of Chinese-language literature both to the total number of included trials (54% vs. 15%) and the sample size (40% vs. 15%). When compared with non-Chinese-language trials, Chinese-language trials were associated with a larger effect size (pooled ROR 0.51, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.91). We also observed a higher risk of bias in Chinese-language trials in blinding of participants and personnel (97% vs. 51%) and blinding of outcome assessment (93% vs. 47%). The higher risk of bias was associated with a larger effect estimate in both Chinese-language (allocation concealment: high/unclear risk vs. low risk, ROR 0.43, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.87) and non-Chinese-language studies (blinding of participants and personnel: high/unclear risk vs. low risk, ROR 0.41, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.74). However, we found no evidence that the higher risk of bias would increase the effect size of acupuncture in Chinese-language studies more often than in non-Chinese-language studies (the confidence intervals of all ROR in the high-risk group included 1, Table 3). We further found acupuncture appeared to be more effective in Chinese than in non-Chinese population (Table 4).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this study suggest the higher risk of bias may lead to an overestimation of the treatment effects of acupuncture but would not increase the treatment effects in Chinese-language studies more often than in other language studies. The difference in treatment effects of acupuncture was probably associated with differences in population characteristics.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

We registered our protocol on the Open Science Framework (OSF) ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/PZ6XR ).

Acne Vulgaris, Atopic Dermatitis and Rosacea: The Role of the Skin Microbiota-A Review

The skin harbors a huge number of different microorganisms such as bacteria, fungi and viruses, and it acts as a protective shield to prevent the invasion of pathogens and to maintain the health of the commensal microbiota. Several studies, in fact, have shown the importance of the skin microbiota for healthy skin. However, this balance can be altered by intrinsic and extrinsic factors, leading to the development of skin disease, such as acne vulgaris (AV), atopic dermatitis (AD) and rosacea(RS). Although these diseases are widespread and affect both adolescents and adults, the scientific correlation between these disorders and the skin microbiota and physiological parameters (TEWL, hydration and lipid composition) is still unclear. This review aims to investigate the current literature regarding the correlation between the skin microbiota and its imbalance underlying microbiological aspects, how the skin microbiota changes over the course of the disease and the current possible treatments. The following reported studies show a general imbalance of the bacterial flora. For this reason, more in-depth studies are necessary to explore the different subspecies and strains involved in all three diseases.

Efficacy and safety of Chinese herbal medicine for atopic dermatitis: Evidence from eight high-quality randomized placebo-controlled trials

Background: The use of Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) for the treatment of atopic dermatitis (AD) has gained attention. This quantitative study systematically evaluated the efficacy and safety of CHM for the treatment of AD in eight high-level clinical trials, resulting in a high level of clinical evidence.

Methods: Several databases were searched, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), the Chongqing VIP Chinese Science (VIP), and Wanfang Database. High-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CHM with placebo were included. The 95% confidence interval (CI) of the risk ratio (RR) was calculated using software (RevMan 5.3) and a meta-analysis was performed. Evidence level evaluation using GRADE Profiler 3.6.

Results: In total, 662 patients (322 in the experimental group and 340 in the control group) were included. The response rate of the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) −90 was higher in the CHM group than in the placebo group (RR, 3.72; 95% CI, 1.76 to7.83; p = 0.01). Furthermore, the scoring of atopic dermatitis (SCORAD) (RR, −10.20), body surface area (BSA) (RR, −2.01), surface damage score (RR, −2.25), visual analog scale (VAS) (RR, −1.90), and sleep score (RR, −2.16), improvement of investigator’s global assessment (IGA) (RR, 2.94) improved in the CHM group. The results showed no statistical difference between CHM and placebo (MD, −0.47; 95% CI, −1.30, 0.37; p = 0.27) in improving the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) or children’s DLQI (CDLQI). There was also no significant difference in the IgE level between the two groups (MD, −62.76; 95% CI, −809.58, 684.05; p = 0.87). However, the adverse events (AEs) rate was slightly higher in patients treated with CHM than in those treated with placebo (RR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.06–1.90; p = 0.02).

Conclusion: CHM improved the size and severity of the skin lesions and sleep quality in patients with AD. Comparing the adverse effects between the two groups, CHM is safe. However, CHM does not improve the quality of life or the patient’s IgE levels.

Bioassay-guided Fractionation of Clove Buds Extract Identifies Eugenol as Potent Melanogenic Inducer in Melanoma Cells

Clove, a dried flower buds of Syzygium aromaticum, is used in traditional medicine, for culinary purposes, and in essential oil production. In our preliminary screening of crude drugs used in Japanese Kampo formulas, a methanol (MeOH) extract of clove buds was found to exhibit a melanin induction. To date, the effects of clove buds or their constituents on the activation of melanogenesis remain unclear. Thus, this study aimed to isolate active compounds from the MeOH extract of clove buds associated with melanin synthesis in melanoma cells and to investigate the molecular mechanism involved. The MeOH extract of clove buds increased melanin content in murine B16-F1 melanoma cells. To identify the active compounds responsible for melanin induction, the MeOH extract was suspended in water and successively partitioned using hexane, ethyl acetate (EtOAc), and n-butanol (n-BuOH). Comparative analysis revealed that the EtOAc fraction induced melanin synthesis. Bioassay-guided separation of the EtOAc fraction isolated three compounds including eugenol. The analysis of structure-activity relationships of eugenol and structurally related compounds indicated that eugenol was the most potent melanin inducer among the 11 compounds, and that a hydroxyl group at C-1 and a methoxy group at C-2 may contribute to melanin induction. Eugenol induced melanin synthesis in human HMV-II melanoma cells as well as in B16-F1 cells. Further analysis indicated that eugenol may invoke intracellular tyrosinase activity and expression of tyrosinase, tyrosinaserelated protein (TRP)-1, TRP-2, and microphthalmia-associated transcription factor (MITF). These results suggest that eugenol enhances melanin synthesis by upregulating the expression of MITF and subsequent expression of melanogenic enzymes, and that it may be a potent therapeutic agent for hypopigmentation.

The Role of Herbal Medicine in the Treatment of Acne Vulgaris: A Systematic Review of Clinical Trials

Over the past few decades, interest in medicinal plants and phytochemicals for the treatment of skin disorders, including acne vulgaris, has progressively increased. Acne vulgaris is a chronic inflammatory disease of the pilosebaceous unit, which mainly occurs in adolescents and young adults. The treatment focuses on the four main factors involved in its pathogenesis: increased sebum production, hyperkeratinization, overgrowth of Cutibacterium acnes, and inflammation. The treatment includes topical retinoids, benzoyl peroxide, antibiotics, and oral isotretinoin. In this regard, the use of herbal medicine as a complementary and alternative medicine is a promising strategy. The main objective of this study was to systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of medicinal plants and phytochemicals in the treatment of acne vulgaris. Three scientific databases (PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus) were searched from inception to January 2021. Clinical trials comparing herbal therapies with placebo or other medicines for the treatment of acne vulgaris were included and analyzed. Outcome measures of interest comprised acne lesions (inflammatory and noninflammatory), sebum production, acne severity, and quality of life. The risk of bias in the included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. A total of 34 clinical trials involving 1753 participants met the inclusion criteria for this systematic review. Most trials showed that herbal medicine significantly reduces inflammatory and noninflammatory acne lesions and has a relevant effect on acne severity. Some medicinal plants revealed equal or higher efficacy to standard treatments. No significant difference between groups in sebum production and quality of life was observed and no severe adverse events were reported. This systematic review provides evidence that medicinal plants and phytochemicals are promising treatments for mild to moderate acne vulgaris. However, more quality of evidence and standardized methodologies are needed to support their effectiveness and safety claims.

The Role of Skin Immune System in Acne

Acne vulgaris is a skin disease that often occurs in adolescence and in young adulthood. The main pathogenic factors are hyperkeratinization, obstruction of sebaceous glands, stimulation of sebaceous gland secretion by androgens, and bacterial colonization of sebaceous units by Cutibacterium acnes, which promotes inflammation. Little is known about the role of skin immune cells in the development of acne lesions. The aim of the study was to try to understand the role of skin immune cells in the course of acne. Recent studies have shown that there are at least four major pathways by which Cutibacterium acnes interacts with the innate immune system to induce inflammation: through TLRs, activating inflammasomes, inducing the production of matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs), and stimulating antimicrobial peptide (AMP) activity. Cells of adaptive immune response, mainly Th1 and Th17 lymphocytes, also play an important role in the pathogenesis of acne. It is worth emphasizing that understanding the role of the skin’s immune cells in the pathogenesis of acne may, in the future, contribute to the application of modern therapeutic strategies that would avoid addiction to antibiotics, which would alleviate the spectrum of resistance that is now evident and a current threat.

Dermatology: how to manage acne vulgaris

Background

Acne vulgaris is the most common skin disease that can lead to disfigurement and psychological distress. This article aims to provide a narrative updated review on the management of acne vulgaris.

Methods

A PubMed search was performed with Clinical Queries using the key term “acne”. The search strategy included clinical trials, meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, observational studies and reviews. The search was restricted to articles published in English.

Results

Treatments of acne include proper skin care, topical medications, oral medications and procedural therapies. Topical agents are the first-line treatment for mild-to-moderate acne and can be used as combination therapy for more severe acne. Systemic therapies are usually prescribed for the initial treatment of moderate-to-severe acne as well as for acne that is refractory to topical therapies.

Conclusion

Topical retinoids are the drugs of choice for the treatment and maintenance therapy of patients with mild-to-moderate acne vulgaris. Depending on the severity of the acne, topical retinoids may be used alone or in combination with benzoyl peroxide and topical or oral antibiotics. Oral antibiotics are an important therapy for inflammatory acne unresponsive to topical therapy. Neither topical nor oral antibiotics should be used as monotherapy. Oral contraceptives and/or spironolactone are useful for many women with acne. Oral isotretinoin is the drug of choice for severe, extensive, nodular acne vulgaris but is also often used in moderate cases where scarring is evident, acne-related psychosocial distress is significant or other treatment modalities have failed.

Mechanistic support of traditional Persian medicine for the treatment of acne vulgaris: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Acne vulgaris is one of the most prevalent skin diseases, which also contributes to many psychological problems. Despite the recent progress in the treatment of acne vulgaris, the necessity for discovering more effective solutions has motivated many lines of research on natural and medicinal plants. The Traditional Persian Medicine (TPM) introduced some plants and remedies for acne treatment. Given the universal welcome for herbal medicine, this review was performed to formally assess the evidence for herbal medicines for acne vulgaris in TPM.

METHODS

The medicinal plants used in this study for treating acne vulgaris were selected based on common references to the plants in five famous textbooks of TPM from different time periods. Then, the anti-inflammatory and anti-microbial effects of these medicinal plants were investigated according to the recent literature available in five electronic databases including Scopus, Web of Sciences, PubMed, Google Scholar, and Science Direct.

RESULTS

Twenty-one herbs were commonly references in traditional TPM texts as helpful for topical treatment of acne vulgaris. The data collected from the electronic databases demonstrated most of these plants (eg, Astragalus sarcocolla, Ficus carica, and Hordeum vulgare) have both anti-inflammatory and anti-microbial mechanisms, which may assist to treat acne vulgaris.

CONCLUSION

This scoping review demonstrated many medicinal plants recommended by TPM books have therapeutic potential for acne vulgaris via multiple mechanisms.

Essential Oils as Natural Sources of Fragrance Compounds for Cosmetics and Cosmeceuticals

Fragrance is an integral part of cosmetic products and is often regarded as an overriding factor in the selection of cosmetics among consumers. Fragrances also play a considerable role in masking undesirable smells arising from fatty acids, oils and surfactants that are commonly used in cosmetic formulations. Essential oils are vital assets in the cosmetic industry, as along with imparting pleasant aromas in different products, they are able to act as preservatives and active agents and, simultaneously, offer various benefits to the skin. Moreover, the stimulating demand for natural ingredients has contributed massively to a renewed interest in cosmetic and wellness industries in plant derivatives, especially essential oils. This has led popular cosmetic companies to endorse natural fragrances and opt for minimally processed natural ingredients, given the potentially adverse health risks associated with artificial fragrance chemicals, which are major elements of cosmetics. Among the high-valued essential oils used as fragrances are citrus, lavender, eucalyptus, tea tree and other floral oils, among others, while linalool, geraniol, limonene, citronellol, and citral are much-appreciated fragrance components used in different cosmetics. Thus, this review aimed to highlight the enormous versatility of essential oils as significant sources of natural fragrances in cosmetics and cosmeceuticals. Moreover, a special focus will be laid on the different aspects related to essential oils such as their sources, market demand, chemistry, fragrance classification, aroma profile, authenticity and safety.

Cannabinoids in Dermatology: Hope or Hype?

Cannabinoids (CBDs) represent a diverse class of chemicals that may be beneficial in the treatment of various skin diseases due to antipruritic, anti-inflammatory, and antinociceptive properties. Although the legal history of these compounds has previously restricted their use and study, it seems likely that CBDs will gain popularity as they become increasingly available. We examined the mechanisms in which CBDs may have potential in the field of dermatology and reviewed the existing literature. We suggest that dermatologists review the existing evidence for CBD use and be ready to discuss it with their patients. The current literature indicates that CBDs may be beneficial in skin disease, particularly in the treatment of acne, chronic pruritus, and atopic dermatitis. Although there is preliminary evidence to suggest that CBDs are beneficial in these conditions, existing studies tend to be small and lacking rigorous design. There is a clear need for high-quality randomized controlled trials to fully evaluate the efficacy and safety of these compounds before their use can be promoted in the treatment of dermatological diseases.

Comparative Efficacy of Pharmacological and Nonpharmacological Interventions for Acne Vulgaris: A Network Meta-Analysis

Acne has several effects on physical symptoms, but the main impacts are on the quality of life, which can be improved by treatment. There are several acne treatments but less evidence comparing their relative efficacy. Thus, we assessed the comparative efficacy of pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions for acne. We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to April 2019, to include randomized controlled trials for acne that compared topical antibiotics (TA), benzoyl peroxide (BPO), topical retinoids (TR), oral antibiotics (OA), lasers, light devices including LED device (LED), photodynamic therapy (PDT), and intense pulsed light, chemical peels (CP), miscellaneous therapies or complementary and alternative medicine (MTCAM), or their combinations. We performed Bayesian network meta-analysis with random effects for all treatments compared with placebo and each other. Mean differences (MDs) of lesions count and risk ratios of adverse events with their 95% credible intervals (CrIs) were calculated, and all interventions were ranked by the Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking (SUCRA) values. Additional frequentist additive network meta-analysis was performed to detect the robustness of results and potential interaction effects. Sensitivity analyses were carried out with different priors, and metaregression was to adjust for nine potential effect modifiers. In the result, seventy-three randomized controlled trials (27,745 patients with mild to moderate acne), comparing 30 grouped intervention categories, were included with low to moderate risk of bias. For adverse effects, OA had more risk in combination treatment with others. For noninflammatory lesions reduction, seventeen interventions had significant differences comparing with placebo and three interventions (TR+BPO: MD = −21.89, 95%CrI [−28.97, −14.76]; TR+BPO+MTCAM: −22.48 [−34.13, −10.70]; TA+BPO+CP: −20.63 [−33.97, −7.13]) were superior to others with 94, 94, and 91% SUCRA values, respectively. For inflammatory lesions reduction, nineteen interventions were significantly better than placebo, and three interventions (TR+BPO: MD = −12.13, 95%CrI [−18.41, −5.80]; TR+BPO+MTCAM: −13.21 [−.39, −3.04]; LED: −11.30 [−18.34, −4.42]) were superior to others (SUCRA: 81, 81, and 77%, respectively). In summary of noninflammatory and inflammatory lesions results, TR+BPO and TA+BPO were the best options compared to others. The frequentist model showed similar results as above. In summary, current evidence supports the suggestion that TR+BPO and TA+BPO are the best options for mild to moderate acne. LED is another option for inflammatory lesions when drug resistance occurs. All the combinations involved with OA showed more risk of adverse events than others. However, the evidence of this study should be cautiously used due to the limitations.

Clinical Applications of Bee Venom Acupoint Injection

Bee venom is a complex natural mixture with various pharmaceutical properties. Among these properties, its peptides and enzymes have potential medical therapy for pain relief and inflammation. In clinical settings, this therapy has been used widely to treat diseases by injecting into acupoints. In this article, we have conducted various research from PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Clinical Key from inception of July 2020. The results revealed that bee venom therapy has been reported effective in anti-inflammatory, antiapoptosis, and analgesic effects. Moreover, bee venom acupuncture has been commonly used for clinical disorders such as Parkinson disease, neuropathic pain, Alzheimer disease, intervertebral disc disease, spinal cord injury, musculoskeletal pain, arthritis, multiple sclerosis, skin disease and cancer.

Efficacy of acupuncture in improving the symptoms and the quality of life of patients with moderate or severe acne vulgaris: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Acne vulgaris (AV) is a common chronic dermatologic disease that tends to impair the appearance and quality of life (QoL) of patients. Although several trials have indicated the effectiveness of acupuncture for treatment of patients with AV, the results of these trials have been contested, owing to potential bias in their design. Thus, there is a lack of robust data to evaluate the efficacy of acupuncture in patients with AV. In addition, none of the previous clinical trials of acupuncture therapy for AV used QoL as a primary outcome or employed a sham acupuncture control arm. The aim of the present study is to evaluate the effectiveness of acupuncture in treating the symptoms and QoL of patients with moderate or severe AV.

METHODS/DESIGN

One hundred eligible participants with AV will be randomly assigned to an acupuncture or a sham acupuncture group (1:1 allocation). All participants will receive 4-week treatment comprising a total of 12 sessions (3 sessions per week). The primary outcome will be change from baseline in the Skindex-16 scale total score at treatment completion. The secondary outcomes will be Skindex-16 subscale score, Dermatology Life Quality Index scale total score, total lesion count and inflammatory lesion count, visual analogue scale scores for assessment of itch and pain, patient expectations of acupuncture, and blinding of the effect of sham acupuncture. Follow-up evaluation will be performed at weeks 16 and 28. All outcome analyses will be performed in the intention-to-treat population.

DISCUSSION

We expect to evaluate the effectiveness of acupuncture in ameliorating the symptoms and improving the QoL of patients with moderate or severe AV compared with sham acupuncture with more robust evidence. The limitations of the trial design are its single-center scope, relatively small sample size, and lack of blinding of the acupuncturists.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR-1900023649. Registered on January 2, 2019.

External Application of Herbal Medicines for Acne Vulgaris: A Systematic Review and Meta Analysis

Aim of the study

The objective of this systematic review is to critically evaluate the evidence of the effectiveness and safety of external application of herbal medicines (EAHM) for acne vurgalis (AV).

Methods

English, Chinese and Korean language databases were searched up to May 2018. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that reported the effects of EAHM for AV were included and analysed.

Results

A total of 10 randomized trials with 656 AV patients were identified. A meta-analysis of two RCTs indicated that EAHM had a significant effect on improving primary outcome ‘global assessment’ compared with placebo (mean difference (MD) = -2.62, confidence interval (CI) = -4.84 to -0.40, p = 0.02). Furthermore, data extracted from two RCTs showed that EAHM significantly reduce primary outcome ‘inflammatory lesion count of acne’ (MD = -1.25, CI = -1.68 to -0.83, p < 0.00001) and ‘non-inflammatory lesion count of acne’ (MD = -1.32, CI = -1.75 to -0.90, p < 0.00001). No significant difference was observed between groups in secondary outcome ‘sebum of skin’ (MD = -0.21, CI = -0.53 to 0.11, p = 0.20) and ‘patient-reported changes in symptom’ (relative risk (RR) = 2.56, CI = 0.43 to 15.22, p = 0.30). No severe adverse events (AEs) were found and no treatment was stopped due to AEs of EAHM.

Conclusions

EAHM seems to have affirmative effects, but quality of evidence, and non-standardized use of EAHM make our conclusion weak. Our suggestion is rigorously designed RCTs and standardization of EAHM are required in the future.

Evaluation of Spin in the Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Focused on the Treatment of Acne Vulgaris: Cross-Sectional Analysis

Background

Spin is the misrepresentation of study findings, which may positively or negatively influence the reader’s interpretation of the results. Little is known regarding the prevalence of spin in abstracts of systematic reviews, specifically systematic reviews pertaining to the management and treatment of acne vulgaris.

Objective

The primary objective of this study was to characterize and determine the frequency of the most severe forms of spin in systematic review abstracts and to evaluate whether various study characteristics were associated with spin.

Methods

Using a cross-sectional study design, we searched PubMed and EMBASE for systematic reviews focusing on the management and treatment of acne vulgaris. Our search returned 316 studies, of which 36 were included in our final sample. To be included, each systematic review must have addressed either pharmacologic or nonpharmacologic treatment of acne vulgaris. These studies were screened, and data were extracted in duplicate by two blinded investigators. We analyzed systematic review abstracts for the nine most severe types of spin.

Results

Spin was present in 31% (11/36) of abstracts. A total of 12 examples of spin were identified in the 11 abstracts containing spin, with one abstract containing two instances of spin. The most common type of spin, selective reporting of or overemphasis on efficacy outcomes or analysis favoring the beneficial effect of the experimental intervention, was identified five times (5/12, 42%). A total of 44% (16/36) of studies did not report a risk of bias assessment. Of the 11 abstracts containing spin, six abstracts (55%) had not reported a risk of bias assessment or performed a risk of bias assessment but did not discuss it. Spin in abstracts was not significantly associated with a specific intervention type, funding source, or journal impact factor.

Conclusions

Spin is present in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses covering the treatment of acne vulgaris. This paper raises awareness of spin in abstracts and emphasizes the importance of its recognition, which may lead to fewer incidences of spin in future studies.

Approaches to limit systemic antibiotic use in acne: Systemic alternatives, emerging topical therapies, dietary modification, and laser and light-based treatments

Acne is one of the most common diseases worldwide and affects ∼50 million individuals in the United States. Oral antibiotics are the most common systemic agent prescribed for the treatment of acne. However, their use might be associated with a variety of adverse outcomes including bacterial resistance and disruption of the microbiome. As a result, multiple treatment guidelines call for limiting the use of oral antibiotics in the treatment of acne, although actual prescribing often does not follow these guidelines. In this review, the rationale for concerns regarding the use of oral antibiotics for the management of acne is reviewed. In addition, we will discuss our approach to complying with the intent of the guidelines, with a focus on novel topical agents, dietary modification, laser and light-based modalities, and systemic medications, such as spironolactone, combined oral contraceptives, and oral isotretinoin.

Oral isotretinoin for acne

BACKGROUND

Acne vulgaris, a chronic inflammatory disease of the pilosebaceous unit associated with socialisation and mental health problems, may affect more than 80% of teenagers. Isotretinoin is the only drug that targets all primary causal factors of acne; however, it may cause adverse effects.

OBJECTIVES

To assess efficacy and safety of oral isotretinoin for acne vulgaris.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to July 2017: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and LILACS. We updated this search in March 2018, but these results have not yet been incorporated in the review. We also searched five trial registries, checked the reference lists of retrieved studies for further references to relevant trials, and handsearched dermatology conference proceedings. A separate search for adverse effects of oral isotretinoin was undertaken in MEDLINE and Embase up to September 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) of oral isotretinoin in participants with clinically diagnosed acne compared against placebo, any other systemic or topical active therapy, and itself in different formulation, doses, regimens, or course duration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 31 RCTs, involving 3836 participants (12 to 55 years) with mild to severe acne. There were twice as many male participants as females.Most studies were undertaken in Asia, Europe, and North America. Outcomes were generally measured between eight to 32 weeks (mean 19.7 weeks) of therapy.Assessed comparisons included oral isotretinoin versus placebo or other treatments such as antibiotics. In addition, different doses, regimens, or formulations of oral isotretinoin were assessed, as well as oral isotretinoin with the addition of topical agents.Pharmaceutical companies funded 12 included trials. All, except three studies, had high risk of bias in at least one domain.Oral isotretinoin compared with oral antibiotics plus topical agentsThese studies included participants with moderate or severe acne and assessed outcomes immediately after 20 to 24 weeks of treatment (short-term). Three studies (400 participants) showed isotretinoin makes no difference in terms of decreasing trial investigator-assessed inflammatory lesion count (RR 1.01 95% CI 0.96 to 1.06), with only one serious adverse effect found, which was Stevens-Johnson syndrome in the isotretinoin group (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.12 to 72.98). However, we are uncertain about these results as they were based on very low-quality evidence.Isotretinoin may slightly improve (by 15%) acne severity, assessed by physician's global evaluation (RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.32; 351 participants; 2 studies), but resulted in more less serious adverse effects (67% higher risk) (RR 1.67, 95% CI 1.42 to 1.98; 351 participants; 2 studies), such as dry lips/skin, cheilitis, vomiting, nausea (both outcomes, low-quality evidence).Different doses/therapeutic regimens of oral isotretinoinFor our primary efficacy outcome, we found three RCTs, but heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis. One study (154 participants) reported 79%, 80% and 84% decrease in total inflammatory lesion count after 20 weeks of 0.05, 0.1, or 0.2 mg/kg/d of oral isotretinoin for severe acne (low-quality evidence). Another trial (150 participants, severe acne) compared 0.1, 0.5, and 1 mg/kg/d oral isotretinoin for 20 weeks and, respectively, 58%, 80% and 90% of participants achieved 95% decrease in total inflammatory lesion count. One RCT, of participants with moderate acne, compared isotretinoin for 24 weeks at (a) continuous low dose (0.25 to 0.4 mg/kg/day), (b) continuous conventional dose (0.5 to 0.7 mg/kg/day), and (c) intermittent regimen (0.5 to 0.7 mg/kg/day, for one week in a month). Continuous low dose (MD 3.72 lesions; 95% CI 2.13 to 5.31; 40 participants; one study) and conventional dose (MD 3.87 lesions; 95% CI 2.31 to 5.43; 40 participants; one study) had a greater decrease in inflammatory lesion counts compared to intermittent treatment (all outcomes, low-quality evidence).Fourteen RCTs (906 participants, severe and moderate acne) reported that no serious adverse events were observed when comparing different doses/therapeutic regimens of oral isotretinoin during treatment (from 12 to 32 weeks) or follow-up after end of treatment (up to 48 weeks). Thirteen RCTs (858 participants) analysed frequency of less serious adverse effects, which included skin dryness, hair loss, and itching, but heterogeneity regarding the assessment of the outcome precluded data pooling; hence, there is uncertainty about the results (low- to very-low quality evidence, where assessed).Improvement in acne severity, assessed by physician's global evaluation, was not measured for this comparison.None of the included RCTs reported birth defects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence was low-quality for most assessed outcomes.We are unsure if isotretinoin improves acne severity compared with standard oral antibiotic and topical treatment when assessed by a decrease in total inflammatory lesion count, but it may slightly improve physician-assessed acne severity. Only one serious adverse event was reported in the isotretinoin group, which means we are uncertain of the risk of serious adverse effects; however, isotretinoin may result in more minor adverse effects.Heterogeneity in the studies comparing different regimens, doses, or formulations of oral isotretinoin meant we were unable to undertake meta-analysis. Daily treatment may be more effective than treatment for one week each month. None of the studies in this comparison reported serious adverse effects, or measured improvement in acne severity assessed by physician's global evaluation. We are uncertain if there is a difference in number of minor adverse effects, such as skin dryness, between doses/regimens.Evidence quality was lessened due to imprecision and attrition bias. Further studies should ensure clearly reported long- and short-term standardised assessment of improvement in total inflammatory lesion counts, participant-reported outcomes, and full safety accounts. Oral isotretinoin for acne that has not responded to oral antibiotics plus topical agents needs further assessment, as well as different dose/regimens of oral isotretinoin in acne of all severities.

Acupuncture for Acne Vulgaris: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Purpose

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the current best available evidence of the efficacy and safety of acupuncture and related therapies for acne vulgaris.

Methods

Eleven English and Chinese databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of acne vulgaris compared to pharmacotherapies, no treatment, and sham or placebo acupuncture. Methodological quality was assessed using Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool. Meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan software.

Results

Twelve RCTs were included in the qualitative review and 10 RCTs were included in meta-analysis. Methodological quality of trials was generally low. The chance of achieving ≥30% change in lesion count in the acupuncture group was no different to the pharmacotherapy group (RR: 1.07 [95% CI 0.98, 1.17]; I² = 8%) and ≥50% change in lesion count in the acupuncture group was not statistically different to the pharmacotherapy group (RR: 1.07 [95% CI 0.98, 1.17]; I² = 50%).

Conclusions

While caution should be exercised due to quality of the included studies, acupuncture and auricular acupressure were not statistically different to guideline recommended treatments but were with fewer side effects and may be a treatment option. Future trials should address the methodological weaknesses and meet standard reporting requirements stipulated in STRICTA.

Oral Health of Patients Treated with Acrylic Partial Dentures Using a Toothpaste Containing Bee Product

This study was carried out to investigate the influence of a propolis and tee tree oil-containing hygienic agent on selected oral health parameters, oral microflora, and the condition of periodontal health. Thirty-seven patients who underwent oral rehabilitation with a removable acrylic denture were selected and randomly assigned into two groups: study group (A) which received a newly formulated propolis and tee tree oil-containing toothpaste or a control group (C) without an active ingredient. API, S-OHI, and mSBI were assessed in three subsequent stages. During each examination swabs were employed for microbiological inoculation: in the study group after 4 weeks use of the active toothpaste showed a decrease in the number of isolated microorganisms. In the control group, after 4 weeks use of the toothpaste without active ingredients resulted in increase in the number of the isolated microorganisms. Improvements in hygiene and the condition of periodontium were observed in patients using active toothpastes. In the study group the oral flora diversity was reduced by the decrease in the number of cultured microorganism species, while in the control group an increase in the number of cultured microorganisms and their species was observed.

Light therapies for acne

BACKGROUND

Acne vulgaris is a very common skin problem that presents with blackheads, whiteheads, and inflamed spots. It frequently results in physical scarring and may cause psychological distress. The use of oral and topical treatments can be limited in some people due to ineffectiveness, inconvenience, poor tolerability or side-effects. Some studies have suggested promising results for light therapies.

OBJECTIVES

To explore the effects of light treatment of different wavelengths for acne.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to September 2015: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and LILACS. We searched ISI Web of Science and Dissertation Abstracts International (from inception). We also searched five trials registers, and grey literature sources. We checked the reference lists of studies and reviews and consulted study authors and other experts in the field to identify further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We updated these searches in July 2016 but these results have not yet been incorporated into the review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs of light for treatment of acne vulgaris, regardless of language or publication status.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 71 studies, randomising a total of 4211 participants.Most studies were small (median 31 participants) and included participants with mild to moderate acne of both sexes and with a mean age of 20 to 30 years. Light interventions differed greatly in wavelength, dose, active substances used in photodynamic therapy (PDT), and comparator interventions (most commonly no treatment, placebo, another light intervention, or various topical treatments). Numbers of light sessions varied from one to 112 (most commonly two to four). Frequency of application varied from twice daily to once monthly.Selection and performance bias were unclear in the majority of studies. Detection bias was unclear for participant-assessed outcomes and low for investigator-assessed outcomes in the majority of studies. Attrition and reporting bias were low in over half of the studies and unclear or high in the rest. Two thirds of studies were industry-sponsored; study authors either reported conflict of interest, or such information was not declared, so we judged the risk of bias as unclear.Comparisons of most interventions for our first primary outcome 'Participant's global assessment of improvement' were not possible due to the variation in the interventions and the way the studies' outcomes were measured. We did not combine the effect estimates but rated the quality of the evidence as very low for the comparison of light therapies, including PDT to placebo, no treatment, topical treatment or other comparators for this outcome. One study which included 266 participants with moderate to severe acne showed little or no difference in effectiveness for this outcome between 20% aminolevulinic acid (ALA)-PDT (activated by blue light) versus vehicle plus blue light (risk ratio (RR) 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 1.04, low-quality evidence). A study (n = 180) of a comparison of ALA-PDT (activated by red light) concentrations showed 20% ALA was no more effective than 15% (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.15) but better than 10% ALA (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.42) and 5% ALA (RR 1.47, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.81). The number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) was 6 (95% CI 3 to 19) and 4 (95% CI 2 to 6) for the comparison of 20% ALA with 10% and 5% ALA, respectively.For our second primary outcome 'Investigator-assessed changes in lesion counts', we combined three RCTs, with 360 participants with moderate to severe acne and found methyl aminolevulinate (MAL) PDT (activated by red light) was no different to placebo cream plus red light with regard to change in inflamed lesions (ILs) (mean difference (MD) -2.85, 95% CI -7.51 to 1.81), percentage change in ILs (MD -10.09, 95% CI -20.25 to 0.06), change in non-inflamed lesions (NILs) (MD -2.01, 95% CI -7.07 to 3.05), or in percentage change in NILs (MD -8.09, 95% CI -21.51 to 5.32). We assessed the evidence as moderate quality for these outcomes meaning that there is little or no clinical difference between these two interventions for lesion counts.Studies comparing the effects of other interventions were inconsistent or had small samples and high risk of bias. We performed only narrative synthesis for the results of the remaining trials, due to great variation in many aspects of the studies, poor reporting, and failure to obtain necessary data. Several studies compared yellow light to placebo or no treatment, infrared light to no treatment, gold microparticle suspension to vehicle, and clindamycin/benzoyl peroxide combined with pulsed dye laser to clindamycin/benzoyl peroxide alone. There were also several other studies comparing MAL-PDT to light-only treatment, to adapalene and in combination with long-pulsed dye laser to long-pulsed dye laser alone. None of these showed any clinically significant effects.Our third primary outcome was 'Investigator-assessed severe adverse effects'. Most studies reported adverse effects, but not adequately with scarring reported as absent, and blistering reported only in studies on intense pulsed light, infrared light and photodynamic therapies. We rated the quality of the evidence as very low, meaning we were uncertain of the adverse effects of the light therapies.Although our primary endpoint was long-term outcomes, less than half of the studies performed assessments later than eight weeks after final treatment. Only a few studies assessed outcomes at more than three months after final treatment, and longer-term assessments are mostly not covered in this review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

High-quality evidence on the use of light therapies for people with acne is lacking. There is low certainty of the usefulness of MAL-PDT (red light) or ALA-PDT (blue light) as standard therapies for people with moderate to severe acne.Carefully planned studies, using standardised outcome measures, comparing the effectiveness of common acne treatments with light therapies would be welcomed, together with adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines.

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.