Randomized study comparing the efficacy and tolerance of a lipophillic hydroxy acid derivative of salicylic acid and 5% benzoyl peroxide in the treatment of facial acne vulgaris

Ex Vivo Live Full-Thickness Porcine Skin Model as a Versatile In Vitro Testing Method for Skin Barrier Research

Since the European Union (EU) announced their animal testing ban in 2013, all animal experiments related to cosmetics have been prohibited, creating a demand for alternatives to animal experiments for skin studies. Here, we investigated whether an ex vivo live porcine skin model can be employed to study the safety and skin barrier-improving effects of hydroxyacids widely used in cosmetics for keratolytic peels. Glycolic acid (1–10%), salicylic acid (0.2–2%), and lactobionic acid (1.2–12%) were used as representative substances for α-hydroxyacid (AHA), β-hydroxyacid (BHA), and polyhydroxyacid (PHA), respectively. When hydroxyacids were applied at high concentrations on the porcine skin every other day for 6 days, tissue viability was reduced to 50–80%, suggesting that the toxicity of cosmetic ingredients can be evaluated with this model. Based on tissue viability, the treatment scheme was changed to a single exposure for 20 min. The protective effects of a single exposure of hydroxyacids on skin barrier function were evaluated by examining rhodamine permeability and epidermal structural components of barrier function using immunohistochemistry (IHC) and immunofluorescence (IF) staining. Lactobionic acid (PHAs) improved skin barrier function most compared to other AHAs and BHAs. Most importantly, trans-epidermal water loss (TEWL), an important functional marker of skin barrier function, could be measured with this model, which confirmed the significant skin barrier-protective effects of PHAs. Collectively, we demonstrated that the ex vivo live full-thickness porcine skin model can be an excellent alternative to animal experiments for skin studies on the safety and efficacy of cosmetic ingredients.

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.

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.

The efficacy and safety of non-pharmacological therapies for the treatment of acne vulgaris: A systematic review and best-evidence synthesis

BACKGROUND

Acne vulgaris is a multifaceted skin disorder, affecting more than 85% of young individuals worldwide. Pharmacological therapy is not always desirable because of the development of antibiotic resistance or the potential risk of adverse effects. Non-pharmacological therapies can be viable alternatives for conventional therapies. However, sufficient evidence-based support in the efficacy and safety of non-pharmacological therapies is lacking.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy and safety of several non-pharmacological therapies in the treatment of acne vulgaris.

METHODS

A systematic literature review, including a best-evidence synthesis, was performed to identify literature. Three electronic databases were accessed and searched for studies published between January 2000 and May 2017.

RESULTS

Thirty-three eligible studies were included in our systematic review. Three main types of non-pharmacological therapies were identified laser- and light-based therapies, chemical peels and fractional microneedling radiofrequency. The majority of the included studies demonstrated a significant reduction in acne lesions. However, only seven studies had a high methodologic quality. Based on these seven trials, a best-evidence synthesis was conducted. Strong evidence was found for glycolic acid (10-40%). Moderate evidence was found for amino fruit acid (20-60%), intense pulsed light (400-700 and 870-1200 nm) and the diode laser (1450 nm). Initially, conflicting evidence was found for pulsed dye laser (585-595 nm). The most frequently reported side-effects for non-pharmacological therapies included erythema, tolerable pain, purpura, oedema and a few cases of hyperpigmentation, which were in most cases mild and transient.

CONCLUSION

Circumstantial evidence was found for non-pharmacological therapies in the treatment of acne vulgaris. However, the lack of high methodological quality among included studies prevented us to draw clear conclusions, regarding a stepwise approach. Nevertheless, our systematic review including a best-evidence synthesis did create order and structure in resulting outcomes in which a first step towards future research is generated.

A skincare combined with combination of adapalene and benzoyl peroxide provides a significant adjunctive efficacy and local tolerance benefit in adult women with mild acne

INTRODUCTION

Acne in adult women is an increasing reason for dermatological consultations.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess in adult women with mild acne the efficacy and tolerance of a daily adjunctive application of a skincare (Normaderm® , Laboratoires Vichy, France) to a fixed combination of adapalene/benzoyl peroxide daily or every other evening and a standard emollient.

METHODS

Subjects were randomized to receive the fixed combination applied either every evening or every other evening and a daily application of the standard emollient and the test care or a once daily application of the fixed combination and the standard emollient alone. Clinical evaluations at Day 0, Day 45 and Day 90 included the count of acne lesions, assessment of clinical improvement and local tolerance. The quantitative lipid profile of the stratum corneum of the forehead was also determined.

RESULTS

After 90 days of application, acne had improved in all 299 subjects with a statistically significant difference in favour of the test care regimens (P < 0.05). Moreover, skin quality, subject satisfaction, skin discomfort and sebum composition were in favour of these regimens.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the tested skincare combined with a fixed adapalene and benzoyl peroxide combination provides a significant adjunctive efficacy and local tolerance benefit in adult women with mild acne.

The role of topical dermocosmetics in acne vulgaris

Acne is a common chronic inflammatory disease and treatment modalities based on acne severity are well established. The role of dermocosmetics in dermatology, and in particular acne, is becoming more important as more research elucidates the mechanisms of action of products in the pathogenesis of acne. Dermocosmetics have the potential to be used as monotherapy or in combination with medical treatment. Therefore, it has become important for dermatologists to understand dermocosmetics to effectively and appropriately advise patients on their use. The objective of this review was to provide new insights into the role of traditional and novel ingredients in dermocosmetics for the treatment of acne, based on the authors' objective assessment of the published literature. The type of products discussed include: those which have a sebostatic effect, such as topical antioxidants and niacinamide; agents targeting abnormal keratinization, such as salicylic acid, lipo-hydroxy acid, alpha-hydroxy acids, retinol-based products and linoleic acid; agents targeting Propionibacterium acnes, such as lauric acid; and anti-inflammatory agents such as nicotinamide, alpha-linolenic acid and zinc salts. Despite the scientific advances in understanding these cosmetic ingredients, there still remains a lack of rigorous controlled studies in this area.

South-East Asia study alliance guidelines on the management of acne vulgaris in South-East Asian patients

The management of acne in South-East Asia is unique, as Asian skin and local variables require a clinical approach unlike that utilized in other parts of the world. There are different treatment guidelines per country in the region, and a group of leading dermatologists from these countries convened to review these guidelines, discuss current practices and recent advances, and formulate consensus guidelines to harmonize the management of acne vulgaris in the region. Emphasis has been placed on formulating recommendations to impede the development of antibiotic resistance in Propionibacterium acnes. The group adopted the Acne Consensus Conference system for grading acne severity. The group recommends that patients may be treated with topical medications including retinoids, benzoyl peroxide (BPO), salicylic acid, a combination of retinoid and BPO, or a combination of retinoids and BPO with or without antibiotics for mild acne; topical retinoid with topical BPO and a oral antibiotic for moderate acne; and oral isotretinoin if the patient fails first-line treatment (a 6- or 8-week trial of combined oral antibiotics and topical retinoids with BPO) for severe acne. Maintenance acne treatment using topical retinoids with or without BPO is recommended. To prevent the development of antibiotic resistance, topical antibiotics should not be used as monotherapy or used simultaneously with oral antibiotics. Skin care, comprised of cleansing, moisturizing and sun protection, is likewise recommended. Patient education and good communication is recommended to improve adherence, and advice should be given about the characteristics of the skin care products patients should use.

The art and science of new advances in cosmeceuticals

The need for cosmeceutical research is ever present. This article has tried to highlight the chemistry of botanic extracts in the current marketplace and review the best research available. In some ways, more questions have been raised than answered; yet, ideas for intellectual discourse have been provided. Herein lies the physician cosmeceutical challenge.