A study of the efficacy of cleansers for acne vulgaris

Topical dermocosmetics and acne vulgaris

Acne is a highly common skin disease especially among teenagers. Modern acne treatments are based also on the use of moisturizers, cleansers and sunscreens. In choosing the right cleanser, it is important to consider some aspects: the interaction between skin type and the cleanser, the optimal time and method of cleaning and the cosmetic perception of the patient. The aim of our review is to highlight the importance of choosing the most suitable topical dermocosmetics for the different skin types, as well as the most effective timing and method to combine dermocosmetics with the standard acne treatment. A search in literature for selected key words was performed using PubMed. Additional papers were identified based on author expertise. Treatment of acne patients should include education for proper daily skin hygiene, including protection from environmental damage. However, given the low number of clinical studies on cleansers, it is difficult to make reliable recommendations. The correct choice and use of topical dermocosmetics are fundamental in the management of acne patients. Daily use of moisturizers, cleansers and sunscreens can reduce both inflammatory and non-inflammatory acne lesion counts and may be helpful for acne treatment if combined with specific drugs.

Identifying and appraising patient-reported outcome measures on treatment satisfaction in acne: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

After dermatitis, acne is the next skin disease to contribute most to the burden of skin diseases worldwide. Recently, seven core outcome domains have been identified, which together form an Acne Core Outcome Set (ACORN). One of these was satisfaction with acne treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To identify studies that described the development of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS), evaluated one or more measurement properties of a PROM, or evaluated the interpretability of a PROM in patients with acne regarding treatment satisfaction.

METHODS

The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) search strategy for identifying PROMS on acne treatment satisfaction was used. We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Emcare, PsycINFO and Academic Search premier (June 2020). Study selection, data extraction and assessment of methodological quality according to COSMIN guidance were carried out independently by two authors.

RESULTS

Only one study could be included, describing the development of a treatment satisfaction measure in patients with acne. The development was assessed as inadequate and data on measurement properties were lacking. Additionally, we found 188 studies reporting treatment satisfaction solely as an outcome, using a wide variety of methods, none of them standardized or validated.

CONCLUSIONS

We could not find a PROM on treatment satisfaction to recommend for a core outcome set in acne. There is an unmet need for a PROM on treatment satisfaction in acne that is robustly developed, designed and validated.

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.

Cosmeceuticals: What's Real, What's Not

Cosmeceuticals are cosmetics that promise to deliver physiologically relevant benefits without the incorporation of prescription drugs. To entice consumers to purchase these premium priced products, a story must be told of how the cosmeceutical delivers on these appearance improvement promises. The backbone of any cosmeceutical skin care regimen is facial cleansing and moisturizing. This article reviews the novel ingredients and technologies used to achieve these benefits examining what is real and what is not.

Cleanser use could decrease numbers of Demodex Folliculorum in mild to moderate acne patients

Objective: This study was to verify if the skin cleanser could help decrease the infection ratio of Demodex Folliculorum in acne patients. Methods: 132 participants with mild to moderate vulgaris acne participated in this monocentric, prospective, double-blind study. Dermatologists grading and Standardized Skin Surface Biopsy were performed in baseline and after using cleanser only 7 d later. Results: There was no significant difference between the 2 times for each type of acne, but the number of Demodex Folliculorum was significantly decreased compared with baseline. There was no relationship between the number of Demodex Folliculorum and the total number of acne lesions. Limitations: Short follow-up time in 7 d. Conclusion: Using the cleanser could decrease the average number of Demodex Folliculorum in only 7 d in mild to moderate acne patients. There is no relationship between Demodex and acne lesions number.

Meeting the Challenges of Acne Treatment in Asian Patients: A Review of the Role of Dermocosmetics as Adjunctive Therapy

Conventional acne treatment presents several challenges such as intolerable side effects and antibiotic resistance. Dermocosmetic products may be used to reduce these unwanted effects. Dermocosmetics include skin cleansers, topical sebum-controllers, skin antimicrobial/anti-inflammatory agents, moisturizers, sunscreens, and camouflage products. Appropriate use of these products may help augment the benefit of acne treatment, minimize side effects, and reduce the need for topical antibiotics. In Asia, there is currently limited scientific data on the application and recommendations for dermocosmetic use in acne vulgaris (AV). This article reviews the evidence on dermocosmetics for AV and provides practice recommendations as discussed during the 4^th Asia-Pacific Acne Leaders' Summit held in Bangkok, Thailand, on 7 and 8 February 2015. Through a premeeting survey, a series of plenary lectures, a stepwise program of discussion sessions, and Medline article review, the Expert Panel set forth relevant recommendations on the role of dermocosmetics as adjunct for treating AV in Asian patients.

Role of cleansers in the management of acne: Results of an Italian survey in 786 patients

BACKGROUND

Modern therapy of acne is based also on moisturizers, cleansers and sunscreens. However, a few studies have been published on cleansers, and never in Italy.

OBJECTIVE

We decided to carry out an epidemiological study on the knowledge, beliefs and perceptions of acne patients regarding cleansers.

METHODS

The survey has been carried out in Italy in 2013-2014. A group of patients with acne completed a questionnaire which included 10 questions.

RESULTS

One hundred and eighteen dermatologists and 786 evaluable acne patients attended the survey. Approximately 70% of patients use a specific anti-acne cleanser. This cleanser is suggested in 57% of cases by a dermatologist. The patients buy this cleanser at the pharmacy (77% of cases). More than 62% of patients are satisfied about this cleanser. More than 66% of patients use the cleanser twice daily. The length of washing is less than one minute in 48% of patients. More than 66% of patients believe that the cleanser has a therapeutical role.

CONCLUSION

The results of this survey cannot be compared with other studies because of the lack of similar studies about this topic. These results suggest that a sample of Italian acne patients consider cleansers as an important adjuvant treatment in acne.

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.

Current and future evidence-based acne treatment: a review

INTRODUCTION

Current acne treatment guidelines, as well as, treatment efficacy, safety, tolerability and patient preferences must all be considered in determining appropriate treatment regimes. Literature can assist physicians' evidence-based recommendations according to these factors.

AREAS COVERED

To determine the current and future direction of pharmacotherapy for treatment of acne, a PubMed search was conducted to identify all clinical trials involving the treatment of acne from 2009 to 2012. A total of 65 publications met inclusion criteria and were reviewed. Literature was heavily focused on the efficacy and tolerability of topical combination therapies and supported their use compared with monotherapy. A few studies on topical antiandrogens and antioxidants showed an alternative approach to targeting acne. Studies on oral monotherapy provided some evidence for the use of pulsed azithromycin for acne in adolescents. Literature also supports the use of low-dose isotretinoin for moderate acne, which was comparable in efficacy to high-dose regimes and better tolerated.

EXPERT OPINION

Combination acne therapy, whether it be combination topical therapy or combination oral and topical therapy, is well supported by recent studies. Given the multifactorial pathogenesis of acne and the hurdles of adherence to treatment, we anticipate greater development of and reliance on combination acne products in the future.

Acne vulgaris: pathogenesis, treatment, and needs assessment

Acne vulgaris is a common skin condition with substantial cutaneous and psychologic disease burden. Studies suggest that the emotional impact of acne is comparable to that experienced by patients with systemic diseases, like diabetes and epilepsy. In conjunction with the considerable personal burden experienced by patients with acne, acne vulgaris also accounts for substantial societal and health care burden. The pathogenesis and existing treatment strategies for acne are complex. This article discusses the epidemiology, pathogenesis, and treatment of acne vulgaris. The burden of disease in the United States and future directions in the management of acne are also addressed.