Systematic review of clinical practice guidelines for acne vulgaris published between January 2017 and July 2021

Background

Acne is very common, can cause considerable negative impact on quality of life and there is increasing concern over the use of long courses of oral antibiotics for this condition.

Objectives

(1) To critically appraise reporting in acne guidelines and compare this with previous systematic review of acne guidelines. (2) Examine acne treatment guidance on pre-specified acne treatments of interest and compare between acne guidelines.

Methods

Searches for new or updated guidelines were carried out in MEDLINE, Embase, Google Scholar, LILACS from 1 January 2017 to 31 July 2021, supplemented by searching a guideline-specific depository and checking for updates to guidelines included in previous review. We included guidelines, consensus statements or care protocols on the medical treatment of acne vulgaris in adults and/or children and excluded those that focused on a single intervention or subgroup of acne, regional adaptations of guidelines or guidelines included in previous review. AGREE II checklist was applied to critically appraise reporting of guidelines. Results were synthesised narratively.

Results

Of 807 abstracts identified nine guidelines were identified that were eligible for inclusion. All guidelines had AGREE II scores above average in at least one domain and reporting was substantially improved compared to the systematic review of acne carried out 5 years previously. There was consensus between guidelines on the key role of topical treatments as first-line acne treatment and most recommended continuing topical treatments as maintenance therapy. There was considerable variation between guidelines on classification of severity, indications for commencing oral antibiotics and on maximum duration of oral antibiotics. However, there was consensus on the need for co-prescription of a non-antibiotic topical treatment when using oral antibiotics. There were notable differences on recommendations regarding provision of information for patients on how to use topical treatments or how to mitigate against side effects.

Conclusions

Substantial differences in classification of acne severity hampered comparisons between guidelines. Although development and reporting of guidelines has improved over the past 5 years, differences in key recommendations remain, possibly reflecting uncertainties in the underlying evidence base. Differences between guidelines could have substantial implications for prevalence of antibiotic prescribing for acne.

AGREE II assessments of recent acne treatment guidelines: how well do they reveal trustworthiness as defined by the U.S. Institute of Medicine criteria?

BACKGROUND

Up-to-date, trustworthy guidelines are a widely relied upon means of promoting excellent patient care.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the quality of recently published acne treatment guidelines by utilizing the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II Reporting Checklist, the U.S. Institute of Medicine's (IOM) criteria of trustworthiness, the red flags of Lenzer et al. and CheckUp.

METHODS

Systematic searches were conducted in bibliographic databases, guideline depositories and using Google to identify acne treatment guidelines published since 2013. Six assessors independently scored each guideline using the AGREE II Reporting Checklist. Guidelines were concomitantly assessed for trustworthiness using the IOM criteria and for the red flags of Lenzer et al., indicative of potential bias. Updates were screened using CheckUp.

RESULTS

Eight guidelines were identified, two of which were updates. Lowest scoring AGREE II domains across all guidelines were applicability (six poor, one fair, one average) and rigour (four poor, one fair, three average). Two of the three highest-scoring guidelines were developed using AGREE II. No guideline fully met each IOM criterion and all raised at least one red flag indicative of potential bias. One updated guideline did not address seven of 16 items on CheckUp and the other did not address four. Patient involvement in guideline development was minimal.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of the AGREE II instrument during guideline development did not have as great an effect on guideline quality as might be expected. There is considerable room for improvement in acne treatment guidelines in order to satisfy the IOM trustworthiness criteria and avoid bias.