A randomized, single-blind comparison of topical clindamycin + benzoyl peroxide and adapalene in the treatment of mild to moderate facial acne vulgaris

Guidelines of care for the management of acne vulgaris

BACKGROUND

Acne vulgaris commonly affects adults, adolescents, and preadolescents aged 9 years or older.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to provide evidence-based recommendations for the management of acne.

METHODS

A work group conducted a systematic review and applied the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach for assessing the certainty of evidence and formulating and grading recommendations.

RESULTS

This guideline presents 18 evidence-based recommendations and 5 good practice statements. Strong recommendations are made for benzoyl peroxide, topical retinoids, topical antibiotics, and oral doxycycline. Oral isotretinoin is strongly recommended for acne that is severe, causing psychosocial burden or scarring, or failing standard oral or topical therapy. Conditional recommendations are made for topical clascoterone, salicylic acid, and azelaic acid, as well as for oral minocycline, sarecycline, combined oral contraceptive pills, and spironolactone. Combining topical therapies with multiple mechanisms of action, limiting systemic antibiotic use, combining systemic antibiotics with topical therapies, and adding intralesional corticosteroid injections for larger acne lesions are recommended as good practice statements.

LIMITATIONS

Analysis is based on the best available evidence at the time of the systematic review.

CONCLUSIONS

These guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations for the management of acne vulgaris.

The Synergy between Pharmacological Regimens and Dermocosmetics and Its Impact on Adherence in Acne Treatment

Background

Acne is the most common inflammatory skin disease in adolescence. It is also prevalent in adults, especially females. The disease has a considerable impact on health-related quality of life. Many studies have reported the negative impact of acne on patients due to skin disfigurement, ineffective treatment, and adverse effects of the treatment. Numerous factors contribute towards nonadherence to therapy. Summary. This review discusses the various factors that are related to treatment nonadherence such as ineffective therapy, adverse effects with topical pharmacotherapy such as skin irritation and erythema as well as patient-related factors such as lack of knowledge of disease and a poor patient-physician relationship. Various methods are being adopted to increase adherence to treatments. Increased adherence to acne therapy has been associated with the use of dermocosmetics, such as moisturizers and cleansers. Encouraging the use of dermocosmetics in synergy with pharmacological regimens could support improved treatment adherence resulting in better clinical outcomes for acne patients.

Conclusion

Dermocosmetics as an adjunct to pharmacological regimens has the potential to improve clinical outcomes by increasing treatment adherence in patients with acne.

Topical preparations for the treatment of mild-to-moderate acne vulgaris: systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Acne is very common and can have a substantial impact on wellbeing. Guidelines suggest first-line management with topical treatments, but there is little evidence regarding which treatments are most effective.

OBJECTIVES

To identify the most effective and best tolerated topical treatments for acne using network meta-analysis.

METHODS

CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and World Health Organization Trials Registry were searched from inception to June 2020 for randomized trials that included participants with mild/moderate acne. Primary outcomes were self-reported improvement in acne, and trial withdrawal. Secondary outcomes included change in lesion counts, Investigator's Global Assessment, change in quality of life and total number of adverse events. Network meta-analysis was undertaken using a frequentist approach. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and confidence in evidence was assessed using CINeMA.

RESULTS

A total of 81 papers were included, reporting 40 trials with a total of 18 089 participants. Patient Global Assessment of Improvement was reported in 11 trials. Based on the pooled network estimates, compared with vehicle, benzoyl peroxide (BPO) was effective (35% vs. 26%) for improving self-reported acne. The combinations of BPO with adapalene (54% vs. 35%) or with clindamycin (49% vs. 35%) were ranked more effective than BPO alone. The withdrawal of participants from the trial was reported in 35 trials. The number of patients withdrawing owing to adverse events was low for all treatments. Rates of withdrawal were slightly higher for BPO with adapalene (2·5%) or clindamycin (2·7%) than BPO (1·6%) or adapalene alone (1·0%). Overall confidence in the evidence was low.

CONCLUSIONS

Adapalene in combination with BPO may be the most effective treatment for acne but with a slightly higher incidence of withdrawal than monotherapy. Inconsistent reporting of trial results precluded firmer conclusions.

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.

Topical Retinoids in Acne Vulgaris: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Topical retinoids are a first-line treatment for acne vulgaris.

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review aims to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of topical retinoids approved in the United States for the treatment of acne vulgaris.

METHODS

A PubMed and Embase search was conducted using the search terms 'adapalene,' 'tretinoin,' 'tazarotene,' and 'acne vulgaris.' Selection of articles fit the following inclusion criteria: clinical trials evaluating both efficacy and safety/tolerability of topical retinoids approved in the United States for the treatment of acne vulgaris and published between January 1, 2008 and September 1, 2018. Exclusion criteria included clinical trials involving 20 subjects or fewer, subjects under 12 years of age, and topical retinoid combination therapies with moisturizers or aloe vera. Of 424 search results found, a total of 54 clinical trials were chosen based on selection criteria.

RESULTS

Topical retinoids are superior to vehicle in improving Investigator Global Assessment and Investigator's Static Global Assessment (24.1-28.8% and 13.3-17.3%, respectively; p < 0.001). A topical retinoid combined with benzoyl peroxide led to IGA improvement compared with vehicle (26.1-34.9% vs 7-11.8%; p < 0.001) at Week 12. Topical retinoid plus an oral antibiotic was superior to vehicle in reducing lesion counts (64-78.9% vs 41-56.8%, p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in efficacy between tretinoin and tazarotene. Tretinoin 0.05% resulted in 62% of patients experiencing AEs compared with adapalene 0.1% (19%) and adapalene 0.3% (40%). More patients receiving adapalene were tolerant of the AEs compared with tazarotene (55.4% vs 24.4%; p < 0.0012).

CONCLUSIONS

Topical retinoids are safe and efficacious for the treatment of acne vulgaris. They should be used in combination with benzoyl peroxide to optimize results in patients. The differences in efficacy of topical retinoids appears minor; therefore, the type of topical retinoid is not as important as choosing a particular strength of topical retinoid and combining it with an antimicrobial agent. Adapalene has a superior tolerability profile amongst topical retinoids.

Optimizing Non-Antibiotic Treatments for Patients with Acne: A Review

Acne is a very common non-infectious skin condition that is frequently treated in dermatological practices. Because acne is often chronic and may persist for years, safe and effective long-term maintenance therapy is often required. Given the increasing frequency of antibiotic-resistant bacteria and the gravity of the consequences of this trend, it behooves dermatologists to maximize use of non-antimicrobial therapy when treating acne. In this review of the literature we present data regarding the efficacy and appropriate use of non-antimicrobial treatments for acne. A variety of topical and oral treatment options exist that can be used in a step-wise manner according to the patients’ severity and therapeutic response. Non-antimicrobial treatments can be highly efficacious at controlling acne, especially when used as maintenance therapy. While antibiotics have a role in acne treatment, they should not be used as monotherapy, and lengthy courses of antibiotic use are discouraged.

A multicentre, randomized, single-blind, parallel-group study comparing the efficacy and tolerability of benzoyl peroxide 3%/clindamycin 1% with azelaic acid 20% in the topical treatment of mild-to-moderate acne vulgaris

BACKGROUND

Mild-to-moderate acne vulgaris is treated with a range of mono- and combination therapies; however, clinical evidence is still required to optimize treatment recommendations.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy, tolerability and safety of a combination of benzoyl peroxide 3% and clindamycin 1% (BPO + CLN) with azelaic acid 20% (AzA) for the topical treatment of mild-to-moderate acne vulgaris.

METHOD

This was a randomized, assessor-blinded, parallel-group, multicentre study conducted in Germany. Patients with a confirmed diagnosis of acne vulgaris, aged 12-45 years, were randomized 1 : 1 to once-daily BPO + CLN gel or twice-daily AzA cream for up to 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was the percentage change in inflammatory lesions from baseline at Week 4. Secondary endpoints included total and inflammatory lesion counts and tolerability assessments. For selected secondary endpoints, inductive statistical analysis was performed post hoc. Patient safety was assessed by adverse event (AE) monitoring.

RESULTS

Efficacy was assessed in the modified intent-to-treat (mITT) population [patients using ≥1 dose of study medication (ITT), plus baseline and ≥1 post-baseline lesion count (n = 215)]. There was a statistically significant difference in the primary endpoint, with a median decrease of -52.6% for BPO + CLN (n = 107) vs.-38.8% for AzA (n = 108; P = 0.0004). There was also a greater difference in secondary lesion endpoints at Week 12, with a median decrease in inflammatory lesions of -78.8% and -65.3% and total lesions of -69.0% and -53.9% with BPO + CLN and AzA, respectively (both P < 0.0001). Tolerability was acceptable for both treatments. Overall, 55.6% (BPO + CLN) and 69.7% (AzA) of patients reported treatment-emergent AEs, and 15.7% and 35.8% of patients experienced application site reactions with BPO + CLN (24 events; 17 patients) and AzA (60 events; 39 patients) treatment, respectively (ITT population).

CONCLUSION

BPO + CLN demonstrated greater efficacy than AzA in the treatment of mild-to-moderate acne vulgaris and has a positive tolerability and safety profile.

Tolerability of Topical Retinoids: Are There Clinically Meaningful Differences Among Topical Retinoids?

BACKGROUND

Topical retinoids are first-line treatment options for acne vulgaris. These drugs, however, produce varying degree of cutaneous irritation within the first few weeks of treatment.

OBJECTIVE

Our purpose was to examine differences in tolerability of topical retinoids and assess whether these differences would be clinically meaningful.

METHODS

A PubMed search was performed for sources on topical retinoids in acne vulgaris treatment. Thirty-four clinical studies were analyzed.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies had statistically significant results on tolerability of retinoid based on retinoid, vehicle, concentration, or skin type. All studies classified most of skin reactions as mild-moderate. Large differences in the number of dropouts due to irritation were not identified.

CONCLUSION

Irritation studies did not show a high frequency of clinically significant irritation with topical retinoids. We anticipate that the large variation in patient use of topical retinoids would likely account for more variation in response than differences between drug formulations.

Treatment of acne in children

Acne is a common skin condition in adolescents. It is not uncommon in childhood and it persists into adulthood. A broad range of acne treatments are available and have been shown to be safe and effective in adolescents and adults. However, there is limited literature regarding acne treatment in childhood and its available therapeutic options. It seems reasonable to extrapolate findings of the various studies reported on treatment of acne in the adolescent and adult age group, with the exclusion of the use of tetracycline derivatives. As clinicians, we must be more familiar with the clinical presentation of acne and available treatment options in our younger patients. Early recognition of acne with prompt and appropriate initiation of therapy in childhood will help prevent severe scarring in children.

The tolerability profile of clindamycin 1%/benzoyl peroxide 5% gel vs. adapalene 0.1%/benzoyl peroxide 2.5% gel for facial acne: results of a randomized, single-blind, split-face study

BACKGROUND

Topical combination therapy, such as that with fixed-dose clindamycin/benzoyl peroxide (BPO) or adapalene/BPO, is the recommended first-line approach for the treatment of facial acne.

AIMS

To compare the tolerability of clindamycin 1%/BPO 5% gel vs. adapalene 0.1% BPO 2.5% gel for the first 2 weeks of treatment in patients with facial acne.

PATIENTS/METHODS

Using a randomized, single-blind, split-face method, 48 patients with acne received both clindamycin/BPO and adapalene/BPO once daily for 2 weeks. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed tolerability. Treatment efficacy, patient-assessed tolerability and satisfaction, and safety were also investigated.

RESULTS

Forty-five patients completed treatment. Investigator-rated scores for erythema, dryness, and peeling were significantly higher with adapalene/BPO than clindamycin/BPO. Patients rated clindamycin/BPO as significantly more tolerable than adapalene/BPO for redness, dryness, burning, itching, and scaling. Investigator Static Global Assessment scores and lesion counts improved with both products, with no significant difference between treatments. Patients' Global Change Assessment showed a statistically significant difference in favor of clindamycin/BPO at week 1, but not week 2. Overall, >80% of patients were "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with treatment at week 2, but 63% of patients stated that they preferred clindamycin/BPO. Both products were well tolerated, with no serious adverse events (AEs), but a post hoc analysis indicated that treatment-related AEs, including irritation, dryness and erythema, were significantly less common with clindamycin/BPO.

CONCLUSIONS

Clindamycin/BPO had a better tolerability profile than adapalene/BPO during 2 weeks of split-face treatment. Treatment satisfaction was highest with clindamycin/BPO.

Antibiotic overuse and resistance in dermatology

Antibiotics have a significant role in dermatology, treating a wide range of diseases, including acne, rosacea, inflammatory skin conditions and skin structure infections, such as cellulitis, folliculitis, carbuncles, and furuncles. Because of their consistent use, utility, and availability, antibiotics are susceptible to overuse within the medical practice, and, specific to this discussion, in the dermatologic setting. The issue of continuously increasing risk of antibiotic resistance remains an important concern to the dermatologist. The scope of this review will be to provide an overview of the common antibiotics used in the dermatologic setting with an emphasis on identifying areas of overuse, reported bacterial resistance, and discussion of clinical management aimed at decreasing antibiotic resistance.

New antibiotic therapies for acne and rosacea

Acne and rosacea compromise a substantial portion of the dermatology clinical practice. Over the past century, many treatment modalities have been introduced with antibiotics playing a major role. Today, both oral and topical antibiotics are used in the management of acne and rosacea, with several novel formulations and/or combination regimens recently introduced. The latest studies suggest anti-inflammatory actions to be the most likely mechanism of antibiotics in acne and rosacea, shifting the focus to subantimicrobial-dose oral antibiotics and/or topical antibiotic regimens as the preferred first-line agents. Here we will discuss the most recent oral and topical antibiotic therapies available for treatment of acne and rosacea, with special focus on efficacy data, indication, dosing, and mechanism of action.

Topical antimicrobial treatment of acne vulgaris: an evidence-based review

Topical antimicrobial treatment is indicated for mild to moderate acne vulgaris. Our literature review includes searches of Ovid, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the databases of the Cochrane Library. A detailed search strategy is included. All searches were limited to controlled trials and systematic reviews. No year limits were applied to the searches, but we focused on trials, guidelines, and reviews published since 2004, the year that the last review of topical antimicrobials was published in this journal. Several controlled trials demonstrate that benzoyl peroxide, topical antibiotics, and topical retinoids used in combination provide the greatest efficacy and safety profile for the treatment of mild to moderate acne, but there are few trials directly comparing different combinations of these topical therapies with one another. Additionally, robust studies comparing cost and efficacy of generic combinations of the above agents with proprietary fixed-dose combination therapies that may increase compliance are also lacking. Although they have not been extensively studied, alternative agents including dapsone, salicylic acid, azelaic acid, and zinc are safe and efficacious when combined with traditional therapies.

The pulsed-dye laser as an adjuvant treatment modality in acne vulgaris: a randomized controlled single-blinded trial

BACKGROUND

Acne vulgaris is the most common skin disease and can pose a substantial therapeutic challenge. Recently, several phototherapeutic modalities, most notably pulsed-dye laser (PDL) treatment, have been introduced, but the published results - albeit promising - are controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of an adjuvant PDL treatment when combined with a proven topical treatment [fixed-combination clindamycin 1%-benzoyl peroxide 5% hydrating gel (C/BPO)].

METHODS

Eighty patients (38 males and 42 females, mean +/- SD age 19.7 +/- 5.9 years) were randomized in a 1 : 2 ratio to receive C/BPO alone or in combination with PDL treatment (wavelength 585 nm, energy fluence 3 J cm(-2), pulse duration 0.35 ms, spot size 7 mm). Patients were evaluated at baseline and at 2 and 4 weeks after initial treatment. The primary end points were the Investigator's Static Global Assessment (ISGA) score and lesion count; the secondary end point was the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI).

RESULTS

Both groups showed a significant improvement during observation [ISGA 27.1% (C/BPO) and 24.6% (C/BPO + laser), total lesion count 9.2% and 9.0%, inflammatory lesion count 36.3% and 36.9%, DLQI 54.5% and 42.5%], but there was no significant or otherwise appreciable difference between treatment modalities as far as the extent of improvement was concerned. Patients with more severe findings at baseline had a greater benefit from either therapy regimen.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings do not support the concept of a substantial benefit of PDL treatment in acne vulgaris.

Assessing potential human health hazards and benefits from subtherapeutic antibiotics in the United States: tetracyclines as a case study

Many scientists, activists, regulators, and politicians have expressed urgent concern that using antibiotics in food animals selects for resistant strains of bacteria that harm human health and bring nearer a "postantibiotic era" of multidrug resistant "super-bugs." Proposed political solutions, such as the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act (PAMTA), would ban entire classes of subtherapeutic antibiotics (STAs) now used for disease prevention and growth promotion in food animals. The proposed bans are not driven by formal quantitative risk assessment (QRA), but by a perceived need for immediate action to prevent potential catastrophe. Similar fears led to STA phase-outs in Europe a decade ago. However, QRA and empirical data indicate that continued use of STAs in the United States has not harmed human health, and bans in Europe have not helped human health. The fears motivating PAMTA contrast with QRA estimates of vanishingly small risks. As a case study, examining specific tetracycline uses and resistance patterns suggests that there is no significant human health hazard from continued use of tetracycline in food animals. Simple hypothetical calculations suggest an unobservably small risk (between 0 and 1.75E-11 excess lifetime risk of a tetracycline-resistant infection), based on the long history of tetracycline use in the United States without resistance-related treatment failures. QRAs for other STA uses in food animals also find that human health risks are vanishingly small. Whether such QRA calculations will guide risk management policy for animal antibiotics in the United States remains to be seen.

Emerging drugs for acne

Acne vulgaris is a common skin disorder that affects most individuals at some point in their lives. It may result in significant morbidity, including cutaneous scarring and psychological impairment. Current treatments include topical retinoids, benzoyl peroxide, topical and systemic antibiotics, and systemic isotretinoin. There are growing concerns of rising antibiotic resistance, significant side effects of isotretinoin therapy, and lack of safe and effective treatment for pregnant females. Recent advances in the pathogenesis of acne have led to a greater understanding of the underlying inflammatory mechanisms and the role the Propionibacterium acnes and biofilms. This has led to the development of new therapeutic targets. This article reviews emerging treatments of acne, including topical picolinic acid, topical antibiotic dapsone, systemic zinc salts, oral antibiotic lymecycline, new formulations of and synergistic combinations of benzoyl peroxide, photodynamic therapy with topical photosensitizers and potential acne vaccines.

Local antibiotics in dermatology

Although the vast majority of skin infection must be treated with systemic antibiotics, topical antibiotics are used overwhelmingly in the world, often as self-prescribed medications without taking into account the sensitivity of the presumed bacteria. Dermatologists are aware that different types of topical antibiotics kill different species of bacteria and tend to be more specific in their prescriptions. At present local antibiotics are advised to treat minor superficial uncomplicated skin infections (e.g., impetigo) and to prevent bacterial infections caused into minor cuts, scrapes, and burns. The role of topical antibiotics in the management of acne and atopic dermatitis is controversial. Retapamulin, a novel topical antibacterial agent, will probably replace the use of the old mupirocin and fusidic acid.