Adapalene 0.1%/benzoyl peroxide 2.5% gel reduces the risk of atrophic scar formation in moderate inflammatory acne: a split-face randomized controlled trial

Acne scarring-pathophysiology, diagnosis, prevention and education: Part I

Acne scarring is common and can occur even with effective acne management. In addition, patients with acne scarring suffer from significant psychosocial morbidity, including depression and suicidality. Despite the availability and advancement of therapeutic modalities, treatment for acne scarring is not always optimized and often overlooked in patients with acne encounters. Using acne scarring assessment tools and identifying specific acne scar subtypes allows for a tailored therapeutic approach. Part I of this continuing medical education series covers the pathophysiology and morphology of textural and pigmented acne scars, scarring assessment tools, and medical treatment options. The principles reviewed will aid in approaching and initiating acne scar treatment in the outpatient setting.

Evaluation of the efficacy of maintenance therapy for acne vulgaris using adapalene 0.1%/benzoyl peroxide 2.5% gel and benzoyl peroxide 2.5% gel for 24 weeks and assessment of atrophic acne scars using three-dimensional image analysis

Maintenance therapy after remission of inflammation is strongly recommended in the guideline for the treatment of acne vulgaris published by the Japanese Dermatological Association. One advantage of continuing maintenance therapy is the alleviation of atrophic scarring. This study investigated the efficacy of maintenance therapy using adapalene 0.1%/benzoyl peroxide 2.5% gel and benzoyl peroxide 2.5% gel, and its effects on atrophic scarring. Overall, 126 patients were randomized to the adapalene/benzoyl peroxide group (n = 40), benzoyl peroxide group (n = 44), and control group (without maintenance treatment drugs; n = 42), and 111 of these completed a trial lasting 24 weeks. As the primary endpoint, the treatment success rate (the percentage of patients in whom the number of inflammatory lesions was maintained at ≤10) was 89.2% in the adapalene/benzoyl peroxide group, 87.5% in the benzoyl peroxide group, and 47.4% in the control group. Compared with the control group, the success rates were significantly higher in the adapalene/benzoyl peroxide and benzoyl peroxide groups (P = 0.0006 for both). As one of the secondary endpoints, the rate of change in the number of atrophic scars showed significant improvement from the baseline in the adapalene/benzoyl peroxide and benzoyl peroxide groups at week 24 (P = 0.0004 and P < 0.0001, respectively). Although the three-dimensional image analysis parameters did not change significantly from the baseline in the adapalene/benzoyl peroxide and benzoyl peroxide groups at week 24, significant worsening was noted in the control group (P = 0.0276 for affected area, P = 0.0445 for volume, and P = 0.0182 for maximum depth). Adverse drug reactions were noted in three patients in the adapalene/benzoyl peroxide group (7.5%) but not in the benzoyl peroxide group. These findings suggest that maintenance therapy using adapalene 0.1%/benzoyl peroxide 2.5% gel and benzoyl peroxide 2.5% gel is effective in preventing the worsening of scars in Japanese patients with acne vulgaris.

Trifarotene Reduces Risk for Atrophic Acne Scars: Results from A Phase 4 Controlled Study

BACKGROUND

Atrophic acne scarring often accompanies acne vulgaris. The efficacy of topical retinoids for treatment of acne is well documented; however, evidence for use in atrophic acne scars is limited.

METHODS

In this randomized, split-face, double-blind study, subjects (age: 17-34 years, N = 121) with moderate-to-severe facial acne, with acne scars present, were treated with either trifarotene 50 μg/g or vehicle once daily for 24 weeks. Efficacy was assessed by absolute and percent change from baseline in atrophic acne scar counts, Scar Global assessment (SGA), and IGA success rates as well as acne lesion counts.

RESULTS

At week 24, a statistically significantly greater reduction in the mean absolute change from baseline in the total atrophic scar count was noted in the trifarotene- vs vehicle-treated area (- 5.9 vs - 2.7; p < 0.0001) with differences between sides noted as early as week 2 (- 1.5 vs - 0.7; p = 0.0072). The SGA success rate was higher in the trifarotene side at week 12 (14.9% vs 5.0%, P < 0.05) and improved through week 24 (31.3% vs 8.1%, P < 0.001). Similarly, at week 24, the IGA success rate was higher with trifarotene (63.6% vs 31.3%, P < 0.0001) along with reductions in total (70% vs 45%) and inflammatory (76% vs 48%) lesion counts. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was 5.8% (trifarotene) and 2.5% (vehicle); most common (> 1%) was skin tightness (1.7% vs 0.8%), and all events were mild to moderate in severity.

CONCLUSIONS

Trifarotene was effective and well tolerated in treating moderate-to-severe facial acne and reducing atrophic acne scars, with reduction of total atrophic scar count as early as week 2.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04856904.

Combination of Fractional Microneedling Radiofrequency and Ablative Fractional Laser versus Ablative Fractional Laser Alone for Acne and Acne Scars

PURPOSE

Fractional microneedle radiofrequency (FMR) systems are used to treat inflammatory acne and scarring. Nonetheless, few controlled studies have combined this treatment with the traditional ablative fractional laser (AFL). We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of the combination of FMR and AFL versus AFL alone in treating acne and acne scars.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this 20-week, randomized, split-face study, 23 Korean patients with facial acne and acne scars underwent FMR and AFL treatments. One half of each patient's face was randomly assigned to receive FMR+AFL, whereas the other half received AFL alone. Treatments were administered in three consecutive sessions at 4-week intervals. This study investigated the severity of inflammatory acne, acne scars, individual lesion counts, depressed scar volumes, as well as patient and physician satisfaction. In addition, five patients underwent skin biopsy, and sebum output was measured.

RESULTS

The FMR+AFL treatment demonstrated superior efficacy compared to AFL alone in terms of inflammatory acne and acne scar grading, lesion counts, and subjective satisfaction. The side effects were minimal and well-tolerated in both groups. Immunohistochemical findings from skin biopsy samples revealed that the application of FMR+AFL could induce an inhibitory effect on sebum secretion at the molecular level.

CONCLUSION

FMR combined with AFL is a well-tolerated and effective treatment modality for inflammatory acne and acne scarring.

Combination radiofrequency microneedling and carbon dioxide laser for acne scarring: A systematic review and retrospective case series across two centers

INTRODUCTION

Combination radiofrequency (RF) microneedling with fractional ablative carbon dioxide (CO₂ ) laser is a new approach for acne scar treatment.

AIMS

(1) to systematically review the literature on the safety and effectiveness of this treatment for acne scarring; (2) to assess safety and effectiveness in a 2-center case series.

METHODS

Systematic review: Articles that assessed the safety and effectiveness of combination RF microneedling and fractional CO₂ laser for acne scarring were included and quality assessed using the Downs and Black checklist.

CASE SERIES

Patient records were reviewed from 2 clinics, one in London, UK, and the other in Washington D.C., United States, to identify patients who underwent a single treatment with RF microneedling and fractional CO₂ laser for acne scarring. Outcome assessment was via the Scar Global Assessment (SGA) scale.

RESULTS

Systematic review: Three articles were included and reported improvements in acne scar severity. Adverse effects included erythema, edema, pain, vesicle formation, erosion, petechiae, desquamation, post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH), and acne flare. Quality scores ranged from 14 to 15 (maximum of 21).

CASE SERIES

Twenty-six patients were included. Mean SGA Score was 3.0 at baseline and 1.3 at follow-up. All patients had an improved SGA score. Adverse effects included erythema, pain, edema, skin crusting, PIH, and acne flare. All patients resumed normal activities within 7 days of treatment.

CONCLUSION

Combination RF microneedling and fractional CO₂ laser appears a safe and effective treatment for patients with acne scarring. A single treatment can result in noticeable improvements in acne scar severity with a short recovery time.

A pilot study evaluating the efficacy and safety of retinaldehyde-loaded niosomes against mild-to-moderate acne

BACKGROUND

Retinoids are the mainstay of topical therapy for acne. To improve the efficacy and minimize the side effects of retinoids, various novel drug delivery mechanisms, including nanoparticles, have been developed.

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of a retinaldehyde-loaded niosome (RA-N) nanoemulsion against sebum secretion and keratinization on mild-to-moderate acne.

PATIENTS/METHODS

Twenty-three participants exhibiting mild-to-moderate acne with both closed and open comedones were included. They applied a 0.05% RA-N nanoemulsion daily for 4 weeks, did not to use any other emollient or topical pharmaceutical, and were asked to report any symptoms and treatment satisfaction.

RESULTS

The participants demonstrated significantly fewer closed and open comedones after 2 and 4 weeks of treatment than at baseline (*p < 0.05). The mean sebum secretion, measured using Sebumeter®, was 327.95 ± 90.20 μg cm^-2 at baseline and reduced to 282.60 ± 99.70 and 250.65 ± 97.6 μg cm^-2 , respectively, after 2 and 4 weeks of treatment (*p < 0.05). The mean desquamation index, determined using Visioscan®, was 10.99 ± 1.69 at baseline and decreased to 9.81 ± 1.10 and 8.89 ± 1.32, respectively, after 2 and 4 weeks of treatment (*p < 0.05). The application of the RA-N nanoemulsion resulted in a significantly lower desquamation level, suggesting that the RA-N nanoemulsion was well-tolerated without any skin irritation. None of the participants reported a serious adverse event during this study.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that the RA-N nanoemulsion was effective in improving comedones in acne-prone skin and safe for long-term application. Further studies are necessary to investigate the long-term effects of the application of the RA-N nanoemulsion in participants with inflammatory acne and acne scars.

An overview of adapalene and benzoyl peroxide once-daily topical gel as a therapeutic option for acne

INTRODUCTION

Acne vulgaris is the most common skin condition worldwide, and it is associated with substantial psychological comorbidity. Topical therapies - including retinoids, antibiotics, and benzoyl peroxide - are the cornerstones of treatment for patients with acne. The main barriers to care in the treatment of acne are poor adherence to therapy and lack of tolerability.

AREAS COVERED

Herein, the authors review the safety and efficacy of adapalene/benzoyl peroxide combination gel (0.1%/2.5% and 0.3%/2.5%), as well as its specific mechanisms of action that target acne vulgaris. The authors also offer an expert opinion on the use of adapalene/benzoyl peroxide gel compared with other topical therapies.

EXPERT OPINION

Adapalene/benzoyl peroxide gel is safe and highly effective in the treatment of acne vulgaris. Its efficacy, tolerability, and ease-of-use are superior to other topical acne therapies, and its use does not contribute to antibiotic resistance. However, the cost of adapalene/benzoyl peroxide gel and lack of available generics may prohibit its use.

Safety of Combined Fractional Microneedle Radiofrequency and CO2 as an Early Intervention for Inflammatory Acne and Scarring Treated With Concomitant Isotretinoin

BACKGROUND

Fractional microneedle radiofrequency (FMRF) systems are popular options for treating acne scars. However, treatment efficacy when used in combination with traditional ablative fractional laser (AFL) and the safety profile with concomitant use of isotretinoin remain unknown.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of an early intervention combination treatment protocol for inflammatory acne and acne scars.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The electronic records of 71 patients with inflammatory acne and acne scars were included in this retrospective observational study. Data were collected for all patients who received combination FMRF and AFL. Within the study group, 43 patients were receiving low-dose isotretinoin or had completed isotretinoin within the past 3 weeks.

RESULTS

The mean Scar Global Assessment score significantly decreased after 3 sessions of combination treatment (n = 71). Patients with inflammatory acne showed a significant decrease in the number of inflammatory lesions (n = 30). Patients with concomitant low-dose isotretinoin use reported a further decrease in Scar Global Assessment score (n = 43). There were no reported persistent side effects, including prolonged inflammatory reaction or scarring.

CONCLUSION

Combination treatment with FMRF and AFL is an effective and well-tolerated treatment modality for acne scars and inflammatory acne.

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 Tazarotene Gel, 0.1%, as a Novel Treatment Approach for Atrophic Postacne Scars: A Randomized Active-Controlled Clinical Trial

Importance

Evidence is robust for the effectiveness of microneedle therapy in the management of postacne atrophic scarring. A home-based topical treatment with an efficacy comparable to microneedling would be a useful addition in the armamentarium of acne scar management.

Objective

To compare the efficacy of topical tazarotene gel, 0.1%, with microneedling therapy in the management of moderate to severe atrophic acne scars.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Prospective, observer-blinded, active-controlled, randomized clinical trial with 6 months of follow-up conducted between June 2, 2017, and February 28, 2018, at a tertiary care hospital in India. Thirty-six patients with grade 2 to 4 facial atrophic postacne scars and without a history of procedural treatment of acne scars within the previous year were recruited. Analyses were conducted using data from the evaluable population.

Interventions

Both halves of each participant's face were randomized to receive either microneedling or topical tazarotene therapy. Microneedling was conducted on 1 side of the face with a dermaroller having a needle length of 1.5 mm for a total of 4 sessions during the course of 3 months. Participants were instructed to apply topical tazarotene gel, 0.1%, to the other side of the face once every night during this same period.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Patients were followed up at 3 and 6 months by a blinded observer, and improvements in acne scar severity based on Goodman and Baron quantitative and qualitative scores and a subjective independent dermatologist score (range, 0-10, with higher scores indicating better improvement) were assessed. Patient satisfaction was assessed using a patient global assessment score (ranging from 0 for no response to 10 for maximum improvement) at these follow-up visits.

Results

There were 36 participants (13 men and 23 women; mean [range] age, 23.4 [18-30] years), and the median (interquartile range [IQR]) duration of acne was 6 (4-8) years. For the 34 participants included in the complete data analyses, the median (IQR) quantitative score for acne scar severity at the 6-month follow-up visit following treatment with either tazarotene (from a baseline of 8.0 [6.0-9.8] to 5.0 [3.0-6.0]) or microneedling (from a baseline of 7.0 [6.0-10.8] to 4.5 [3.0-6.0]) indicated significant improvement (P < .001) that was comparable for both treatments (median [IQR] change in severity score from baseline, 2.5 [2.0-4.0] vs 3.0 [2.0-4.0]; P = .42). By contrast, median qualitative acne scar scores were the same for both treatment groups at baseline and did not significantly change following either treatment.

Conclusions and Relevance

The present clinical trial showed comparable outcomes of both treatments for the overall improvement of quantitative facial acne scar severity.

Level of Evidence

1.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03170596.

Long-Term Effectiveness and Safety of Up to 48 Weeks' Treatment with Topical Adapalene 0.3%/Benzoyl Peroxide 2.5% Gel in the Prevention and Reduction of Atrophic Acne Scars in Moderate and Severe Facial Acne

BACKGROUND

Scarring is a frequent consequence of acne.

OBJECTIVES

Our objective was to evaluate the effect of up to 48 weeks' treatment with adapalene 0.3%/benzoyl peroxide 2.5% (A0.3/BPO2.5) gel on atrophic scars in moderate or severe acne vulgaris.

METHODS

In Part 1 of this two-part study, A0.3/BPO2.5 gel or vehicle was applied on each half-face for 24 weeks in a randomized, investigator-blinded, split-face design. Part 2 was a 24-week, open-label extension phase during which A0.3/BPO2.5 gel was applied on both sides of the face. Assessments included investigator atrophic acne scar count, Scar Global Assessment (SGA), acne lesion count, local tolerability, and safety.

RESULTS

Of the 45 subjects entering Part 2, 41 completed the 48-week study. At baseline (Part 1), most subjects had moderate acne (93.3%) with mild scars (62.2%). The scar count decrease from baseline was 21.7% at week 24 and 26.9% at week 48 on the half-face treated for 48 weeks with A0.3/BPO2.5. For the half-face treated with vehicle followed by 24 weeks' A0.3/BPO2.5, scar count increased by 16.7% at week 24 (under vehicle) and decreased by 22.7% between weeks 24 and 48. The half-face that received 48 weeks' A0.3/BPO2.5 had a lower final atrophic scar count (mean 8.4 vs. 9.9 for the half-face with 24 weeks' vehicle then 24 weeks' A0.3/BPO2.5) and a higher percentage of SGA clear/almost clear. High reductions in acne lesions between baseline and week 48 were observed for both sides of the face. Long-term treatment with A0.3/BPO2.5 was safe and well-tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

Reductions in atrophic acne scars and acne lesions observed after 24 weeks of treatment with A0.3/BPO2.5 gel were maintained with treatment up to 48 weeks. The additional improvement in atrophic scar count with 48 weeks' A0.3/BPO2.5 treatment, compared to delayed application at 24 weeks, highlights the importance of early initiation of effective acne treatment to prevent and reduce the formation of acne scars.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02735421.

New Concepts, Concerns, and Creations in Acne

Laboratory monitoring for patients on isotretinoin should include creatinine kinase in athletic males and the more liver-specific gamma glutamyltransferase. There is mounting evidence that acne pathophysiology includes a barrier defect and subsequent microbiome disruption. Avoidance of acne scars with early and aggressive treatment is a more efficient and cost-effective option than subsequent treatment. Laser and light treatments for acne and acne scars are plentiful but poorly supported by evidence-based medicine. The acne pipeline is rich with new chemical entities, new formulations, and combinations of older agents. The gold standard for acne therapy may be changing its face.

Update in the management of acne in adolescence

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review will update the pediatric provider on recent data on the pathogenesis and treatment of acne in adolescent patients. A special focus was made to summarize recent guidelines and fill in several identified practice gaps.

RECENT FINDINGS

Our understanding of the pathogenesis of acne is greatly expanding and data is emerging to tie diet, particularly the role of IGF-1 with inflammation in acne. Additionally, stronger recommendations to limit antibiotic usage in acne are being made worldwide. Although retinoids are considered the base of most effective acne treatment strategies, data suggests that all providers need to emphasize their importance in maintenance of acne.

SUMMARY

An effective acne management strategy targets multiple pathogenic factors in acne, using a retinoid as the foundation. Systemic antibiotics for moderate-to-severe acne should be used for acute management, then discontinued at 3-4 months, while maintaining on topical treatments. If therapy is ineffective, alternate treatments, such as combined oral contraceptives in females or isotretinoin, should be promptly employed to prevent prolonged psychological impact and cutaneous scarring.

Prevention and Reduction of Atrophic Acne Scars with Adapalene 0.3%/Benzoyl Peroxide 2.5% Gel in Subjects with Moderate or Severe Facial Acne: Results of a 6-Month Randomized, Vehicle-Controlled Trial Using Intra-Individual Comparison

BACKGROUND

Very few clinical trials have investigated the effect of topical acne treatment on scarring.

OBJECTIVES

Our objective was to evaluate the efficacy of adapalene 0.3%/benzoyl peroxide 2.5% gel (A0.3/BPO2.5) in atrophic acne scar formation in patients with acne.

METHODS

In this multicenter, randomized, investigator-blinded, vehicle-controlled study, subjects with moderate or severe facial acne (Investigator's Global Assessment [IGA] score 3 or 4; ≥ 25 inflammatory lesions; ten or more atrophic acne scars) applied A0.3/BPO2.5 or vehicle daily per half face for 24 weeks. Subjects with acne requiring systemic treatment were excluded. Assessments included investigator atrophic acne scar count, Scar Global Assessment (SGA), acne lesion count, IGA, skin roughness and skin texture, subject self-assessment of clinical acne-related scars and satisfaction questionnaire, tolerability, and safety.

RESULTS

Included subjects (n = 67) had mainly moderate acne (92.5% IGA 3); mean scores at baseline were approximately 40 acne lesions and 12 scars per half face. By week 24, the change from baseline in total scar count was - 15.5% for A0.3/BPO2.5 versus  + 14.4% for vehicle (approximately 30% difference), with a mean of 9.5 scars versus 13.3 per half face, respectively (p < 0.0001). For SGA at week 24, a total of 32.9% with A0.3/BPO2.5 versus 16.4% with vehicle (p < 0.01) were clear/almost clear. Inflammatory acne lesions decreased by 86.7% for A0.3/BPO2.5 versus 57.9% for vehicle (p < 0.0001), and 64.2 versus 19.4% of subjects, respectively, were IGA clear/almost clear (p < 0.0001) at week 24. Treatment-related AEs were reported by 20.9% for A0.3/BPO2.5 versus 9% for vehicle side, most commonly skin irritation (14.9 vs. 6%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Topical A0.3/BPO2.5 prevented and reduced atrophic scar formation. Scar count increased with vehicle (+ 14.4%) but decreased with A0.3/BPO2.5 (- 15.5%) over 24 weeks.

TRIAL REGISTRY

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02735421.

Practical management of acne for clinicians: An international consensus from the Global Alliance to Improve Outcomes in Acne

Scientific advances are continually improving the knowledge of acne and contributing to the refinement of treatment options; it is important for clinicians to regularly update their practice patterns to reflect current standards. The Global Alliance to Improve Outcomes in Acne is an international group of dermatologists with an interest in acne research and education that has been meeting regularly since 2001. As a group, we have continuously evaluated the literature on acne. This supplement focuses on providing relevant clinical guidance to health care practitioners managing patients with acne, with an emphasis on areas where the evidence base may be sparse or need interpretation for daily practice.

Synchronizing Pharmacotherapy in Acne with Review of Clinical Care

Acne is a chronic inflammatory skin disease that involves the pathogenesis of four major factors, such as androgen-induced increased sebum secretion, altered keratinization, colonization of Propionibacterium acnes, and inflammation. Several acne mono-treatment and combination treatment regimens are available and prescribed in the Indian market, ranging from retinoids, benzoyl peroxide (BPO), anti-infectives, and other miscellaneous agents. Although standard guidelines and recommendations overview the management of mild, moderate, and severe acne, relevance and positioning of each category of pharmacotherapy available in Indian market are still unexplained. The present article discusses the available topical and oral acne therapies and the challenges associated with the overall management of acne in India and suggestions and recommendations by the Indian dermatologists. The experts opined that among topical therapies, the combination therapies are preferred over monotherapy due to associated lower efficacy, poor tolerability, safety issues, adverse effects, and emerging bacterial resistance. Retinoids are preferred in comedonal acne and as maintenance therapy. In case of poor response, combination therapies BPO-retinoid or retinoid-antibacterials in papulopustular acne and retinoid-BPO or BPO-antibacterials in pustular-nodular acne are recommended. Oral agents are generally recommended for severe acne. Low-dose retinoids are economical and have better patient acceptance. Antibiotics should be prescribed till the inflammation is clinically visible. Antiandrogen therapy should be given to women with high androgen levels and are added to regimen to regularize the menstrual cycle. In late-onset hyperandrogenism, oral corticosteroids should be used. The experts recommended that an early initiation of therapy is directly proportional to effective therapeutic outcomes and prevent complications.