Severity Assessment and Outcome Measures in Acne Vulgaris

Inter-rater variability and consistency within four acne grading systems recommended in China, USA, and Europe

PURPOSE

To investigate the correlation among different investigators (intrarater variation) in the assessment of acne vulgaris severity using Acne Grading System (AGS), International Improvement Grading System (IIGS), Investigator Global Assessment of acne (IGA), and Global Evaluation Acne (GEA), and to compare AGS and IIGS with the IGA recommended in the United States, and GEA in Europe.

METHODS

A prospective cross-sectional study was conducted among patients with acne vulgaris, attending the dermatology outpatient clinics at five hospitals in China. Four investigators were engaged using AGS, IIGS, IGA, and GEA to assess severity of acne vulgaris. Correlation among AGS, IIGS, GEA, and IGA were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 1107 participants suffering from acne vulgaris were enrolled. There was evidence of adequate internal consistency among AGS, IIGS, IGA, and GEA. For the intrarater reliability, AGS, IIGS, GEA, and IGA demonstrated excellent reliability. Moreover, AGS, IIGS, IGA, and GEA were significantly correlated with each other (p ≤ 0.01).

CONCLUSION

IIGS and AGS were reliable, and correlated well with IGA and GEA.

Effects of Topical Retinoids on Acne and Post-inflammatory Hyperpigmentation in Patients with Skin of Color: A Clinical Review and Implications for Practice

Acne is a common cause for post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH), particularly in patients with skin of color (SOC), and PIH is often more distressing to patients than the acne itself. Topical retinoids are approved for the treatment of acne and for pigmentation disorders such as melasma or mottled hyperpigmentation associated with photodamage; moreover, they have been shown to reduce hyperpigmentation in patients with SOC. Therefore, treatment with topical retinoids should be started as early as possible unless contraindicated. Use of novel formulations or application of commonly recommended moisturizers may help reduce irritation. Combining retinoids with other topical agents and procedures such as superficial chemical peels can help to improve hyperpigmentation. Primary acne lesions are likely to improve weeks before PIH resolves and helping patients manage their expectations may reduce frustration. Providing clinicians and researchers with more education about the presentation and management of dermatologic conditions in patients with SOC is also recommended.

Identifying and appraising patient-reported outcome measures on treatment satisfaction in acne: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

After dermatitis, acne is the next skin disease to contribute most to the burden of skin diseases worldwide. Recently, seven core outcome domains have been identified, which together form an Acne Core Outcome Set (ACORN). One of these was satisfaction with acne treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To identify studies that described the development of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS), evaluated one or more measurement properties of a PROM, or evaluated the interpretability of a PROM in patients with acne regarding treatment satisfaction.

METHODS

The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) search strategy for identifying PROMS on acne treatment satisfaction was used. We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Emcare, PsycINFO and Academic Search premier (June 2020). Study selection, data extraction and assessment of methodological quality according to COSMIN guidance were carried out independently by two authors.

RESULTS

Only one study could be included, describing the development of a treatment satisfaction measure in patients with acne. The development was assessed as inadequate and data on measurement properties were lacking. Additionally, we found 188 studies reporting treatment satisfaction solely as an outcome, using a wide variety of methods, none of them standardized or validated.

CONCLUSIONS

We could not find a PROM on treatment satisfaction to recommend for a core outcome set in acne. There is an unmet need for a PROM on treatment satisfaction in acne that is robustly developed, designed and validated.

Severity of Acne Vulgaris: Comparison of Two Assessment Methods

Purpose

Numerous tools are available to assess acne severity. It is important to have an acceptable and easy to use tool for acne assessment for many reasons, such as initial assessment and follow-ups, clinical trials, and comparisons of clinical studies. The aim was to investigate the agreement between different observers (inter-observer variation) in the evaluation using the Global Acne Grading System (GAGS) and Investigator Global Assessment of Acne (IGA). Besides, to investigate the correlation between the assessment scores and its relation to the quality of life scales Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) and the Cardiff Acne Disability Index (CADI).

Patients and Methods

This was a prospective study. Four investigators involved to evaluate the study subject surveyed 54 patients complaining of acne using IGA and GAGS scores (DLQI and CADI).

Results

A significant relation was seen between GAGS and IGA (Pearson chi-square test p= 0.001), and they demonstrated excellent inter-rater reliability. There was no correlation between IGA and quality of life measures (CADI nor DLQI). However, there was a significant weak correlation between GAGS and CADI.

Conclusion

The two methods for acne severity assessment are reliable, and they are correlated. Quality of life concerning acne is not correlated with the severity of the disease.

Topical benzoyl peroxide for acne

BACKGROUND

Acne is a common, economically burdensome condition that can cause psychological harm and, potentially, scarring. Topical benzoyl peroxide (BPO) is a widely used acne treatment; however, its efficacy and safety have not been clearly evaluated.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of BPO for acne.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to February 2019: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS. We also searched five trials registers and checked the reference lists of relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs that compared topical BPO used alone (including different formulations and concentrations of BPO) or as part of combination treatment against placebo, no treatment, or other active topical medications for clinically diagnosed acne (used alone or in combination with other topical drugs not containing BPO) on the face or trunk.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane. Primary outcome measures were 'participant global self-assessment of acne improvement' and 'withdrawal due to adverse events in the whole course of a trial'. 'Percentage of participants experiencing any adverse event in the whole course of a trial' was a key secondary outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 120 trials (29,592 participants randomised in 116 trials; in four trials the number of randomised participants was unclear). Ninety-one studies included males and females. When reported, 72 trials included participants with mild to moderate acne, 26 included participants with severe acne, and the mean age of participants ranged from 18 to 30 years. Our included trials assessed BPO as monotherapy, as add-on treatment, or combined with other active treatments, as well as BPO of different concentrations and BPO delivered through different vehicles. Comparators included different concentrations or formulations of BPO, placebo, no treatment, or other active treatments given alone or combined. Treatment duration in 80 trials was longer than eight weeks and was only up to 12 weeks in 108 trials. Industry funded 50 trials; 63 trials did not report funding. We commonly found high or unclear risk of performance, detection, or attrition bias. Trial setting was under-reported but included hospitals, medical centres/departments, clinics, general practices, and student health centres. We reported on outcomes assessed at the end of treatment, and we classified treatment periods as short-term (two to four weeks), medium-term (five to eight weeks), or long-term (longer than eight weeks). For 'participant-reported acne improvement', BPO may be more effective than placebo or no treatment (risk ratio (RR) 1.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.12 to 1.45; 3 RCTs; 2234 participants; treatment for 10 to 12 weeks; low-certainty evidence). Based on low-certainty evidence, there may be little to no difference between BPO and adapalene (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.10; 5 RCTs; 1472 participants; treatment for 11 to 12 weeks) or between BPO and clindamycin (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.34; 1 RCT; 240 participants; treatment for 10 weeks) (outcome not reported for BPO versus erythromycin or salicylic acid). For 'withdrawal due to adverse effects', risk of treatment discontinuation may be higher with BPO compared with placebo or no treatment (RR 2.13, 95% CI 1.55 to 2.93; 24 RCTs; 13,744 participants; treatment for 10 to 12 weeks; low-certainty evidence); the most common causes of withdrawal were erythema, pruritus, and skin burning. Only very low-certainty evidence was available for the following comparisons: BPO versus adapalene (RR 1.85, 95% CI 0.94 to 3.64; 11 RCTs; 3295 participants; treatment for 11 to 24 weeks; causes of withdrawal not clear), BPO versus clindamycin (RR 1.93, 95% CI 0.90 to 4.11; 8 RCTs; 3330 participants; treatment for 10 to 12 weeks; causes of withdrawal included local hypersensitivity, pruritus, erythema, face oedema, rash, and skin burning), erythromycin (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 15.26; 1 RCT; 60 participants; treatment for 8 weeks; withdrawal due to dermatitis), and salicylic acid (no participants had adverse event-related withdrawal; 1 RCT; 59 participants; treatment for 12 weeks). There may be little to no difference between these groups in terms of withdrawal; however, we are unsure of the results because the evidence is of very low certainty. For 'proportion of participants experiencing any adverse event', very low-certainty evidence leaves us uncertain about whether BPO increased adverse events when compared with placebo or no treatment (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.70; 21 RCTs; 11,028 participants; treatment for 10 to 12 weeks), with adapalene (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.00; 7 RCTs; 2120 participants; treatment for 11 to 24 weeks), with erythromycin (no participants reported any adverse events; 1 RCT; 89 participants; treatment for 10 weeks), or with salicylic acid (RR 4.77, 95% CI 0.24 to 93.67; 1 RCT; 41 participants; treatment for 6 weeks). Moderate-certainty evidence shows that the risk of adverse events may be increased for BPO versus clindamycin (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.58; 6 RCTs; 3018 participants; treatment for 10 to 12 weeks); however, the 95% CI indicates that BPO might make little to no difference. Most reported adverse events were mild to moderate, and local dryness, irritation, dermatitis, erythema, application site pain, and pruritus were the most common.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence suggests that BPO as monotherapy or add-on treatment may be more effective than placebo or no treatment for improving acne, and there may be little to no difference between BPO and either adapalene or clindamycin. Our key efficacy evidence is based on participant self-assessment; trials of BPO versus erythromycin or salicylic acid did not report this outcome. For adverse effects, the evidence is very uncertain regarding BPO compared with adapalene, erythromycin, or salicylic acid. However, risk of treatment discontinuation may be higher with BPO compared with placebo or no treatment. Withdrawal may be linked to tolerability rather than to safety. Risk of mild to moderate adverse events may be higher with BPO compared with clindamycin. Further trials should assess the comparative effects of different preparations or concentrations of BPO and combination BPO versus monotherapy. These trials should fully assess and report adverse effects and patient-reported outcomes measured on a standardised scale.