An observer‐blind, parallel‐group, randomized, multicentre clinical and microbiological study of a topical clindamycin/zinc gel and a topical clindamycin lotion in patients with mild/moderate acne

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.

Evidence-based topical treatments (azelaic acid, salicylic acid, nicotinamide, sulfur, zinc, and fruit acid) for acne: an abridged version of a Cochrane systematic review

OBJECTIVE

The effects of topical azelaic acid, salicylic acid, nicotinamide, sulfur, zinc, and fruit acid (alpha-hydroxy acid) for acne are unclear. We aimed to assess the effects of these topical treatments by collecting randomized controlled trials.

METHODS

We searched The Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS up to May 2019. We also searched five trials registers. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Meta analyses were performed by using Review Manager 5 software.

RESULTS

We included a total of 49 trials involving 3880 participants. In terms of treatment response (measured using participants' global self-assessment of acne improvement, PGA), azelaic acid was probably less effective than benzoyl peroxide (RR = 0.82, 95% CI 0.72-0.95). However, there was probably little or no difference in PGA when comparing azelaic acid to tretinoin (RR = 0.94, 95% CI 0.78-1.14). There may be little or no difference when comparing salicylic acid to tretinoin (RR = 1.00, 95% CI 0.92-1.09). There were no studies measured PGA when evaluating nicotinamide. With respect to alpha-hydroxy acid, there may be no difference in PGA when comparing glycolic acid to salicylic-mandelic acid (RR = 1.06, 95% CI 0.88-1.26). We were uncertain about the effects of sulfur and zinc. Adverse events associated with these topical treatments were always mild and transient.

CONCLUSIONS

Moderate-quality evidence was available for azelaic acid and low- to very-low-quality evidence for other topical treatments. Risk of bias and imprecision limit our confidence in the evidence.

Topical azelaic acid, salicylic acid, nicotinamide, sulphur, zinc and fruit acid (alpha-hydroxy acid) for acne

BACKGROUND

Acne is an inflammatory disorder with a high global burden. It is common in adolescents and primarily affects sebaceous gland-rich areas. The clinical benefit of the topical acne treatments azelaic acid, salicylic acid, nicotinamide, sulphur, zinc, and alpha-hydroxy acid is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of topical treatments (azelaic acid, salicylic acid, nicotinamide, zinc, alpha-hydroxy acid, and sulphur) for acne.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to May 2019: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS. We also searched five trials registers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Clinical randomised controlled trials of the six topical treatments compared with other topical treatments, placebo, or no treatment in people with acne.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Key outcomes included participants' global self-assessment of acne improvement (PGA), withdrawal for any reason, minor adverse events (assessed as total number of participants who experienced at least one minor adverse event), and quality of life.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 49 trials (3880 reported participants) set in clinics, hospitals, research centres, and university settings in Europe, Asia, and the USA. The vast majority of participants had mild to moderate acne, were aged between 12 to 30 years (range: 10 to 45 years), and were female. Treatment lasted over eight weeks in 59% of the studies. Study duration ranged from three months to three years. We assessed 26 studies as being at high risk of bias in at least one domain, but most domains were at low or unclear risk of bias. We grouped outcome assessment into short-term (less than or equal to 4 weeks), medium-term (from 5 to 8 weeks), and long-term treatment (more than 8 weeks). The following results were measured at the end of treatment, which was mainly long-term for the PGA outcome and mixed length (medium-term mainly) for minor adverse events. Azelaic acid In terms of treatment response (PGA), azelaic acid is probably less effective than benzoyl peroxide (risk ratio (RR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 0.95; 1 study, 351 participants), but there is probably little or no difference when comparing azelaic acid to tretinoin (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.14; 1 study, 289 participants) (both moderate-quality evidence). There may be little or no difference in PGA when comparing azelaic acid to clindamycin (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.38; 1 study, 229 participants; low-quality evidence), but we are uncertain whether there is a difference between azelaic acid and adapalene (1 study, 55 participants; very low-quality evidence). Low-quality evidence indicates there may be no differences in rates of withdrawal for any reason when comparing azelaic acid with benzoyl peroxide (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.29; 1 study, 351 participants), clindamycin (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.48 to 3.56; 2 studies, 329 participants), or tretinoin (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.47; 2 studies, 309 participants), but we are uncertain whether there is a difference between azelaic acid and adapalene (1 study, 55 participants; very low-quality evidence). In terms of total minor adverse events, we are uncertain if there is a difference between azelaic acid compared to adapalene (1 study; 55 participants) or benzoyl peroxide (1 study, 30 participants) (both very low-quality evidence). There may be no difference when comparing azelaic acid to clindamycin (RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.67 to 3.35; 1 study, 100 participants; low-quality evidence). Total minor adverse events were not reported in the comparison of azelaic acid versus tretinoin, but individual application site reactions were reported, such as scaling. Salicylic acid For PGA, there may be little or no difference between salicylic acid and tretinoin (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.09; 1 study, 46 participants; low-quality evidence); we are not certain whether there is a difference between salicylic acid and pyruvic acid (1 study, 86 participants; very low-quality evidence); and PGA was not measured in the comparison of salicylic acid versus benzoyl peroxide. There may be no difference between groups in withdrawals when comparing salicylic acid and pyruvic acid (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.50; 1 study, 86 participants); when salicylic acid was compared to tretinoin, neither group had withdrawals (both based on low-quality evidence (2 studies, 74 participants)). We are uncertain whether there is a difference in withdrawals between salicylic acid and benzoyl peroxide (1 study, 41 participants; very low-quality evidence). For total minor adverse events, we are uncertain if there is any difference between salicylic acid and benzoyl peroxide (1 study, 41 participants) or tretinoin (2 studies, 74 participants) (both very low-quality evidence). This outcome was not reported for salicylic acid versus pyruvic acid, but individual application site reactions were reported, such as scaling and redness. Nicotinamide Four studies evaluated nicotinamide against clindamycin or erythromycin, but none measured PGA. Low-quality evidence showed there may be no difference in withdrawals between nicotinamide and clindamycin (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.60; 3 studies, 216 participants) or erythromycin (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.46 to 4.22; 1 study, 158 participants), or in total minor adverse events between nicotinamide and clindamycin (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.99; 3 studies, 216 participants; low-quality evidence). Total minor adverse events were not reported in the nicotinamide versus erythromycin comparison. Alpha-hydroxy (fruit) acid There may be no difference in PGA when comparing glycolic acid peel to salicylic-mandelic acid peel (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.26; 1 study, 40 participants; low-quality evidence), and we are uncertain if there is a difference in total minor adverse events due to very low-quality evidence (1 study, 44 participants). Neither group had withdrawals (2 studies, 84 participants; low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to benzoyl peroxide, azelaic acid probably leads to a worse treatment response, measured using PGA. When compared to tretinoin, azelaic acid probably makes little or no difference to treatment response. For other comparisons and outcomes the quality of evidence was low or very low. Risk of bias and imprecision limit our confidence in the evidence. We encourage the comparison of more methodologically robust head-to-head trials against commonly used active drugs.

The role of zinc in the treatment of acne: A review of the literature

Acne vulgaris is a chronic disease of the pilosebaceous units presenting as inflammatory or noninflammatory lesions in individuals of all ages. The current standard of treatment includes topical formulations in the forms of washes, gels, lotions, and creams such as antibiotics, antibacterial agents, retinoids, and comedolytics. Additionally, systemic treatments are available for more severe or resistant forms of acne. Nevertheless, these treatments have shown to induce a wide array of adverse effects, including dryness, peeling, erythema, and even fetal defects and embolic events. Zinc is a promising alternative to other acne treatments owing to its low cost, efficacy, and lack of systemic side effects. In this literature review, we evaluate the effectiveness and side-effect profiles of various formulations of zinc used to treat acne.

Topical acne treatments in Europe and the issue of antimicrobial resistance

Acne vulgaris (acne) is a chronic inflammatory disease of the sebaceous gland, characterized by follicular hyperkeratinization, excessive colonization by Propionibacterium acnes (P. acnes) as well as immune reactions and inflammation. Despite an armamentarium of topical treatments available including benzoyl peroxide, retinoids and azelaic acid, topical antibiotics in monotherapies, especially erythromycin and clindamycin, are still used in Europe to treat acne. This intensive use led to antimicrobial-resistant P. acnes and staphylococci strains becoming one of the main health issues worldwide. This is an update on the current topical acne treatments available in Europe, their mechanism of action, their potential to induce antimicrobial resistance and their clinical efficacy and safety.

Medical adherence to acne therapy: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Poor adherence of acne patients to treatment may equate to poor clinical efficacy, increased healthcare costs, and unnecessary treatments. Authors have investigated risk factors for poor medical adherence and how to improve this difficult problem in the context of acne.

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review aims to describe what methods have been used to measure adherence, what is known about acne patients' adherence to treatment, and the factors affecting adherence.

METHODS

A MEDLINE search was performed for randomized controlled trials published between 1978 and June 2013, focusing on patient adherence to prescribed acne medications. A test for equality of proportions was performed on studies of similar design to collectively analyze adherence to oral versus topical medication. The self-reported adherence data collected from these clinical trials were then compared with adherence data from a pharmacy database study.

RESULTS

Studies varied in modalities of data collection, but the majority utilized subjective methods. Topical therapies were more often studied than oral. The overall oral adherence rate, as calculated by a test of equality of proportions, was 76.3%, while the overall topical adherence rate was 75.8% (p=0.927). The occurrence of side effects and young age were cited as the top reasons for poor adherence, followed by forgetfulness.

LIMITATIONS

The MEDLINE search resulted in a limited sample of adherence studies. In addition, there is currently no standardized or fully validated method of measurement, allowing for variability in what was considered 'adherent'. Lastly, data collected via subjective methods cannot guarantee reliable results.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the values reflected a population adherent to both topical and oral medications, with no significant difference in adherence between the two. However, the methodologies used by many of the studies were weak, and the findings are not consistent with results of more objective measures of adherence. The leading factors that contribute to poor adherence may be reduced with enhanced patient consultation, reminder systems, and education.

Improving adherence to acne treatment: the emerging role of application software

OBJECTIVE

To examine recent studies on the effect of mobile and electronic (ME)-health technology on adherence to acne treatment.

BACKGROUND

With emerging use of ME-health technology, there is a growing interest in evaluating the effectiveness of the tools on medication adherence. Examples of ME-health technology-based tools include text message-based pill reminders and Web-based patient education.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched for articles on adherence to acne treatment published through November 2013. A combination of search terms such as "acne" and "adherence" or "compliance" were used.

RESULTS

Adherence to oral acne medication was higher than for topical acne medication. The frequency of office visits was also an influencing factor for acne treatment adherence. The telephone-based reminders on a daily basis did not improve acne patients' medication adherence, whereas the Web-based educational tools on a weekly basis had a positive effect on medication adherence in acne treatment.

CONCLUSION

In using ME-health interventions, factors such as medication dosage forms, frequency of intervention, and patients' preferences should be taken into consideration. Developing disease-specific text message reminders may be helpful to increase adherence rates. In addition, a combination of text message reminders with another type of intervention may improve medication adherence.

Innovative uses for zinc in dermatology

Severe zinc deficiency states, such as acrodermatitis enteropathica, are associated with a variety of skin manifestations, such as perioral, acral, and perineal dermatitis. These syndromes can be reversed with systemic zinc repletion. In addition to skin pathologies that are clearly zinc-dependent, many dermatologic conditions (eg, dandruff, acne, and diaper rash) have been associated and treated with zinc. Success rates for treatment with zinc vary greatly depending on the disease, mode of administration, and precise zinc preparation used. With the exception of systemic zinc deficiency states, there is little evidence that convincingly demonstrates the efficacy of zinc as a reliable first-line treatment for most dermatologic conditions. However, zinc may be considered as an adjunctive treatment modality. Further research is needed to establish the indications for zinc treatment in dermatology, optimal mode of zinc delivery, and best type of zinc compound to be used.

Clindamycin phosphate scavenges hydroxyl radical

BACKGROUND

Clindamycin phosphate (CLDMP) is effective against Gram-positive and anaerobic bacteria, and is known to have anti-inflammatory properties.

METHODS

To further study the anti-inflammatory properties of CLDMP, we examined the scavenging effects on superoxide anion and hydroxyl radical using an electron spin resonance (ESR) spin trapping method.

RESULTS

In a hypoxanthine-xanthine oxidase reaction system, CLDMP did not scavenge superoxide anion. In a Fenton reaction system, however, CLDMP reduced the level of hydroxyl radical, and the scavenging activity of CLDMP against hydroxyl radical was more potent than that of mannitol. As the concentration which inhibits the formation of hydroxyl radical by 50% (IC(50)) of CLDMP was changed by the addition of a 10-fold amount of a spin trapping agent, 5,5-dimethyl-1-pyrroline-N-oxide, it is strongly suggested that CLDMP scavenges hydroxyl radical directly.

CONCLUSION

This is the first report of the direct scavenging effect of CLDMP on hydroxyl radical, and the effect may improve the inflammatory response caused by invading bacteria.

A single centre, open-label, cross-over study of pharmacokinetics comparing topical zinc/clindamycin gel (Zindaclin) and topical clindamycin lotion (Dalacin T) in subjects with mild to moderate acne

Zinc/clindamycin gel (Zindaclin 1%) gel, is a new once-daily topical acne treatment (Strakan Ltd) containing clindamycin phosphate equivalent to 1% clindamycin and zinc acetate in a formulation, which leads to a reduced systemic absorption of clindamycin through the skin. The objective of the study was to compare the systemic absorption of clindamycin from zinc/clindamycin gel and clindamycin lotion (Dalacin T topical lotion, Pharmacia Ltd) after repeated twice-daily topical administration for two periods of 5 days with an intervening gap of 2 weeks in 24 subjects with mild to moderate acne. Plasma Cmax, and AUC0-12 of clindamycin measured after single and multiple applications of zinc/clindamycin gel were between 30% and 50% lower than for clindamycin lotion. As zinc/clindamycin gel is a topical treatment for acne, the lower systemic bioavailability may be beneficial because there may be a correspondingly lower risk of systemic events in zinc/clindamycin gel-treated subjects.