A systematic review and network meta-analysis of topical pharmacological, oral pharmacological, physical and combined treatments for acne vulgaris

Author:

Mavranezouli Ifigeneia12ORCID,Daly Caitlin H.3,Welton Nicky J.3,Deshpande Shalmali24,Berg Laura24,Bromham Nathan24,Arnold Stephanie24,Phillippo David M.3,Wilcock Jane5,Xu Jingyuan26,Ravenscroft Jane C.7ORCID,Wood Damian8,Rafiq Mohammed9,Fou Linyun2,Dworzynski Katharina24,Healy Eugene1011

Affiliation:

1. Centre for Outcomes Research and Effectiveness, Research Department of Clinical, Educational & Health Psychology University College London 1–19 Torrington Place London WC1E 7HB UK

2. National Guideline Alliance Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists 10–18 Union Street London SE1 1SZ UK

3. Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School University of Bristol Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road Bristol BS8 2PS UK

4. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Level 1A, Piccadilly Plaza Manchester M1 4BT UK

5. Silverdale Medical Practice Pendlebury Health Centre 659 Bolton Road, Swinton Salford M27 8HP UK

6. Department of Dermatopharmacology University of Manchester Manchester M13 9PT UK

7. Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust UK

8. Nottingham Children's Hospital Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Queen’s Medical Centre Derby Road Nottingham UK

9. Pembroke Surgery Reading UK

10. Department of Dermatopharmacology, Faculty of Medicine University of Southampton Southampton UK

11. Department of Dermatology University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust Southampton UK

Abstract

Summary Background Various treatments for acne vulgaris exist, but little is known about their comparative effectiveness in relation to acne severity. Objectives To identify best treatments for mild-to-moderate and moderate-to-severe acne, as determined by clinician-assessed morphological features. Methods We undertook a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing topical pharmacological, oral pharmacological, physical and combined treatments for mild-to-moderate and moderate-to-severe acne, published up to May 2020. Outcomes included percentage change in total lesion count from baseline, treatment discontinuation for any reason, and discontinuation owing to side-effects. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and bias adjustment models. Effects for treatments with ≥ 50 observations each compared with placebo are reported below. Results We included 179 RCTs with approximately 35 000 observations across 49 treatment classes. For mild-to-moderate acne, the most effective options for each treatment type were as follows: topical pharmacological – combined retinoid with benzoyl peroxide (BPO) [mean difference 26·16%, 95% credible interval (CrI) 16·75–35·36%]; physical – chemical peels, e.g. salicylic or mandelic acid (39·70%, 95% CrI 12·54–66·78%) and photochemical therapy (combined blue/red light) (35·36%, 95% CrI 17·75–53·08%). Oral pharmacological treatments (e.g. antibiotics, hormonal contraceptives) did not appear to be effective after bias adjustment. BPO and topical retinoids were less well tolerated than placebo. For moderate-to-severe acne, the most effective options for each treatment type were as follows: topical pharmacological – combined retinoid with lincosamide (clindamycin) (44·43%, 95% CrI 29·20–60·02%); oral pharmacological – isotretinoin of total cumulative dose ≥ 120 mg kg−1 per single course (58·09%, 95% CrI 36·99–79·29%); physical – photodynamic therapy (light therapy enhanced by a photosensitizing chemical) (40·45%, 95% CrI 26·17–54·11%); combined – BPO with topical retinoid and oral tetracycline (43·53%, 95% CrI 29·49–57·70%). Topical retinoids and oral tetracyclines were less well tolerated than placebo. The quality of included RCTs was moderate to very low, with evidence of inconsistency between direct and indirect evidence. Uncertainty in findings was high, in particular for chemical peels, photochemical therapy and photodynamic therapy. However, conclusions were robust to potential bias in the evidence. Conclusions Topical pharmacological treatment combinations, chemical peels and photochemical therapy were most effective for mild-to-moderate acne. Topical pharmacological treatment combinations, oral antibiotics combined with topical pharmacological treatments, oral isotretinoin and photodynamic therapy were most effective for moderate-to-severe acne. Further research is warranted for chemical peels, photochemical therapy and photodynamic therapy for which evidence was more limited. What is already known about this topic?  Acne vulgaris is the eighth most common disease globally.Several topical, oral, physical and combined treatments for acne vulgaris exist.Network meta-analysis (NMA) synthesizes direct and indirect evidence and allows simultaneous inference for all treatments forming an evidence network.Previous NMAs have assessed a limited range of treatments for acne vulgaris and have not evaluated effectiveness of treatments for moderate-to-severe acne. What does this study add?  For mild-to-moderate acne, topical treatment combinations, chemical peels, and photochemical therapy (combined blue/red light; blue light) are most effective.For moderate-to-severe acne, topical treatment combinations, oral antibiotics combined with topical treatments, oral isotretinoin and photodynamic therapy (light therapy enhanced by a photosensitizing chemical) are most effective.Based on these findings, along with further clinical and cost-effectiveness considerations, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance recommends, as first-line treatments, fixed topical treatment combinations for mild-to-moderate acne and fixed topical treatment combinations, or oral tetracyclines combined with topical treatments, for moderate-to-severe acne.

Funder

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

Subject

Dermatology

Reference36 articles.

1. Years lived with disability (YLDs) for 1160 sequelae of 289 diseases and injuries 1990-2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010;Vos;Lancet,2012

2. A global perspective on the epidemiology of acne;Tan;Br J Dermatol,2015

3. Psychosocial impact of acne vulgaris: evaluating the evidence;Tan;Skin Therapy Lett,2004

4. Reviewing the global burden of acne: how could we improve care to reduce the burden?;Layton;Br J Dermatol,2021

5. Acne vulgaris;Moradi Tuchayi;Nat Rev Dis Primers,2015

Cited by 26 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

1. Prescribing Teratogenic Medications Post- Dobbs;The American Journal of Bioethics;2024-01-31

2. Long‐term efficacy and safety of nonablative monopolar radiofrequency in the treatment of moderate to severe acne vulgaris;Lasers in Surgery and Medicine;2024-01-14

3. Isotretinoin and Adverse Psychiatric Effects;JAMA Dermatology;2024-01-01

4. Die Bedeutung von Mikrokomedonen bei der Akne: Von der Beschreibung bis zum Behandlungsansatz?;JDDG: Journal der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft;2024-01

5. Managing acne vulgaris: an update;Drug and Therapeutics Bulletin;2023-12-27

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3