Dispelling myths about acne

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.

Expert committee recommendations for acne management

In 2003, an international committee of physicians and researchers in the field of acne, working together as the Global Alliance to Improve Outcomes in Acne, developed consensus guidelines for the treatment of acne. These guidelines were evidence based when possible but also included the extensive clinical experience of this group of international dermatologists. As a result of the evaluation of available data and the experience, significant changes occurred in the management routines for acne. The greatest change arose on the basis of improved understanding of acne pathophysiology. The recommendation now is that acne treatments should be combined to target as many pathogenic factors as possible. A topical retinoid should be the foundation of treatment for most patients with acne, because retinoids target the microcomedo, the precursor to all acne lesions. Retinoids also are comedolytic and have intrinsic antiinflammatory effects, thus targeting 2 pathogenic factors in acne. Combining a topical retinoid with an antimicrobial agent targets 3 pathogenic factors, and clinical trials have shown that combination therapy results in significantly faster and greater clearing as opposed to antimicrobial therapy alone. Oral antibiotics should be used only in moderate-to-severe acne, should not be used as monotherapy, and should be discontinued as soon as possible (usually within 8-12 weeks). Because of their effect on the microcomedo, topical retinoids also are recommended as an important facet of maintenance therapy.

Profile of acne patients in the Philippines requiring a second course of oral isotretinoin

BACKGROUND

Oral isotretinoin (OI) is currently the gold standard in the treatment of moderately severe to severe acne vulgaris. Approximately 50-85% of patients achieve permanent cure with one course based on 1.0-2.0 mg/kg/body weight. It has been shown that a dosage of less than 1 mg/kg/body weight predisposed to noncure and required a second course for a permanent cure.

OBJECTIVE

Purpose of this study was to describe the profile of acne patients in the Philippines requiring a second course of OI.

METHODS

Charts of acne vulgaris patients given OI in a private dermatology clinic (SSJ) over a period of 10 years were reviewed and analyzed. All patients were given a total dose of 1 mg/kg/body weight (cumulative total dose of 120 mg/kg/body weight).

RESULT

Of 240 patients taking OI included in the study, 193 completed the entire course. One hundred and 43 (59.6%) were cured after one course and required no further therapy (control group: CG), 42 (17.5%) experienced relapse and were treated with topical therapy, and eight (3.3%) relapsed and required oral antibiotic plus topical therapy. Only 47 patients (19.6%) required a second course of OI therapy (study group: SG). There was no difference between the two groups in age, sex, severity, and location of lesions. Two factors were found to be of statistically significant difference: Total dose actually taken with 103.5 mg/kg/body weight for the SG vs. 118.55 mg/kg/body weight for the CG. Median duration of treatment was 6.7 months for the SG vs. 7.41 months for the CG, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The profile of acne patients in the Philippines requiring a second course of OI is seen in those taking a mean cumulative dose (actual total dose) less than 120 mg/kg/body weight, with a mean actual duration of 6.7 months.

Minocycline for acne vulgaris: efficacy and safety

BACKGROUND

Minocycline is a tetracycline antibiotic that is commonly used in the treatment of moderate to severe acne vulgaris. Although it is more convenient for patients to take than first-generation tetracyclines, as it only needs to be taken once or twice a day and can be taken with food, it is more expensive. Concerns have also been expressed over its safety following the deaths of two patients taking the drug. There is a lack of consensus among dermatologists over the relative risks and benefits of minocycline. As most acne prescribing is undertaken by general practitioners, it is important that guidelines issued to them are based on the best available evidence rather than personal judgements.

OBJECTIVES

To collate and evaluate the evidence on the clinical efficacy of minocycline in the treatment of inflammatory acne vulgaris. Specific objectives were to compare the efficacy of minocycline with other drug treatments for acne and to collate information on the incidence of adverse drug reactions.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of minocycline for acne vulgaris were identified by searching the following electronic databases; MEDLINE, EMBASE, Biosis, Biological Abstracts, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Cochrane Skin Group's Trial Register, Theses Online, BIDS ISI Science Citation Index, National Research Register, Current Controlled Trials and Bids Index to Scientific and Technical Proceedings. Other strategies used were scanning the references of articles retrieved, hand-searching of major dermatology journals and personal communication with trialists and drug companies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

To be eligible for the review, studies had to be RCTs comparing the efficacy of minocycline at any dose to active or placebo control, in subjects with inflammatory acne vulgaris. Diagnoses of papulo-pustular, polymorphic and nodular acne were also accepted. Trials were not excluded on the basis of language.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

27 randomised controlled trials met the inclusion criteria and were included in this review. The comparators used were placebo (2 studies), oxytetracycline (1), tetracycline (6), doxycycline (7), lymecycline (2), topical clindamycin (3), topical erythromycin/zinc (1), cyproterone acetate/ ethinyloestradiol (1), oral isotretinoin (2), topical fusidic acid (1) and there was one dose response study. Two studies are ongoing and it remains to be clarified whether one further study is a RCT. Major outcome measures used in the trials included lesion counts, acne grades/severity scores, doctors' and patients' global assessments, adverse drug reactions and drop out rates. The quality of each study was assessed independently by two assessors and an effect size calculated where possible. An additional three RCTs and three safety studies were identified by searches conducted in November 2002; these will be reviewed for a major update in early 2003 when it is anticipated that the results of the two ongoing studies will be available.

MAIN RESULTS

The trials were generally small and of poor quality and in many cases the published reports were inadequate for our purpose. Pooling of the studies was not attempted due to the lack of common outcome measures and endpoints and the unavailability of some primary data. Although minocycline was shown to be an effective treatment for acne vulgaris, in only two studies was it found to be superior to other tetracyclines. Both of these were conducted under open conditions and had serious methodological problems. A third study showed it to be more effective than 2% fusidic acid, applied topically, against inflammatory lesions in mild to moderate acne. Differences in the way adverse drug reactions were identified could have accounted for the wide variation between studies in numbers of events reported. This meant that no overall evaluation could be made of incidence rates of adverse events associated with minocycline therapy. No RCT evidence was found to support the benefits of minocycline in acne resistant to other therapies and the dose response has only been evaluated up to eight weeks of therapy.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Minocycline is likely to be an effective treatment for moderate acne vulgaris, but this review found no reliable RCT evidence to justify its continued use first-line, especially given the price differential and the concerns that still remain about its safety. Its efficacy relative to other acne therapies could not be reliably determined due to the poor methodological quality of the trials and lack of consistent choice of outcome measures. Similarly the relative risk of adverse drug reactions could not be ascertained reliably and no recommendations can be made concerning the appropriate dose that should be used. It is hoped that this review will highlight the inadequacy of acne trials in general and encourage improvements in methodological quality and standards of reporting.

An update of recent clinical trials examining adapalene and acne

Topical retinoids are a mainstay in the treatment of acne vulgaris. In the past these agents have been associated with irritant effects, however, newer generations of topical retinoids have emerged that have been designed to be less irritating. This paper focuses on the newer topical retinoid products, and specifically looks at adapalene and recent clinical studies that evaluate its efficacy and tolerability. Most of these studies evaluate adapalene in comparison with the new tretinoin formulations, which, like adapalene, have been designed to be less irritating than their predecessors. The various studies comparing the efficacy and tolerability of adapalene with the new formulations of tretinoin are described. A summary of the findings and their implications follows.