-
Archives of Dermatological Research Apr 2022There is increasing demand for home-based devices for the treatment of dermatologic conditions and cosmesis. Commercially available devices include intense pulsed light,...
There is increasing demand for home-based devices for the treatment of dermatologic conditions and cosmesis. Commercially available devices include intense pulsed light, laser diodes, radiofrequency, light-emitting diodes, and ultraviolet B phototherapy. The objective of this report is to evaluate the current evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of home-based devices for the treatment of skin conditions. A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Cinahl was conducted on November 9, 2020 using PRISMA guidelines. Original research articles that investigated the efficacy and safety of home-based devices for dermatologic use were included. Bibliographies were screened for additional relevant articles. Strength of evidence was graded using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine guidelines. Clinical recommendations were then made based on the quality of the existing literature. After review, 37 clinical trials were included-19 were randomized controlled trials, 16 were case series, and 2 were non-randomized controlled trials. Ultimately, from our analysis, we recommend the home-based use of intense pulsed light for hair removal, laser diodes for androgenic alopecia, low power radiofrequency for rhytides and wrinkles, and light-emitting diodes for acne vulgaris. Trials investigating ultraviolet B phototherapy for psoriasis revealed mixed evidence for home treatments compared to clinic treatments. All devices had favorable safety profiles with few significant adverse events. Limitations to our review include a limited number of randomized controlled trials as well as a lack of data on the long-term efficacy and safety of each device.
Topics: Cosmetic Techniques; Dermatology; Device Approval; Hair Removal; Humans; Laser Therapy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Self Administration; Skin Aging
PubMed: 33938981
DOI: 10.1007/s00403-021-02231-0 -
International Wound Journal Oct 2021To date, treatment of atrophic acne scars remains a therapeutic challenge for dermatologists, yet there is no standard option on the most effective treatment....
To date, treatment of atrophic acne scars remains a therapeutic challenge for dermatologists, yet there is no standard option on the most effective treatment. Microneedling (MN) is a minimally invasive technology that involves repetitive skin puncture using sterile microneedles to disrupt dermal collagen that connects the scar tissue. Recent studies have demonstrated the potency of MN, such as dermaroller and fractionated microneedle radiofrequency, in the treatment of atrophic scars. The objective of this review is to evaluate systematically the current literature on MN for atrophic acne scars. A systematic search of literature was performed from PubMed, Medline, Cochrane Central, and Google Scholar databases for articles published during the last 20 years. Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with full-text version of the manuscript available were included in our study. Nine RCTs were included in this review. All treatment modalities demonstrated consistent results that MN was efficacious in treating atrophic acne scars as a monotherapy or in combination with other treatments. Moreover, no serious adverse effects were reported in all studies after MN treatment. MN is a well-tolerated and effective therapeutic modality in treating atrophic acne scars. Further research is required to validate the efficacy of MN with a larger sample size and lengthy follow-up.
Topics: Acne Vulgaris; Atrophy; Cicatrix; Cosmetic Techniques; Humans; Needles; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33538106
DOI: 10.1111/iwj.13559 -
Skin Research and Technology : Official... Jun 2023Acne scar is a persistent complication of acne vulgaris. However, the prevalence and risk factors are still unclear. This study aimed to assess the global prevalence and...
BACKGROUND
Acne scar is a persistent complication of acne vulgaris. However, the prevalence and risk factors are still unclear. This study aimed to assess the global prevalence and risk factors of acne scars in patients with acne.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic search of published studies in three databases was performed and the meta-analyses were conducted.
RESULTS
Finally, we included 37 studies involving 24 649 acne patients. And, the pooled prevalence of acne scars in these patients was 47% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 38-56%). Besides, the differences in prevalence were observed based on the subgroup analysis for age, gender, acne severity, source of patients, and so on. Subsequently, we quantified the relationship of three risk factors with acne scars: male gender (odds ratio [OR]: 1.58, 95% CI: 1.19-2.09), positive family history of acne (OR: 2.73, 95% CI: 1.26-5.91), and acne severity (OR for moderate acne: 2.34, 95% CI: 1.54-3.57; OR for severe acne: 5.51, 95% CI: 2.45-12.41).
CONCLUSION
Herein, we found that 47% of acne patients suffered from acne scars and identified three risk factors: male gender, positive family history of acne, and acne severity. In order to reduce acne scarring, attention and effective therapy early in the course of acne is important.
Topics: Humans; Male; Acne Vulgaris; Cicatrix; Prevalence; Risk Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37357642
DOI: 10.1111/srt.13386 -
Skin Health and Disease Aug 2023Acne 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...
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.
PubMed: 37538340
DOI: 10.1002/ski2.240 -
RMD Open Dec 2023Synovitis acne pustulosis hyperostosis osteitis (SAPHO) is a rare heterogeneous disease of unknown aetiopathology. Externally validated and internationally agreed... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
Synovitis acne pustulosis hyperostosis osteitis (SAPHO) is a rare heterogeneous disease of unknown aetiopathology. Externally validated and internationally agreed diagnostic criteria or outcomes and, as a result, prospective randomised controlled trials in SAPHO are absent. Consequently, there is no agreed treatment standard. This study aimed to systematically collate and discuss treatment options in SAPHO.
METHODS
Following 'Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses' guidance, a systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science databases. Prospective clinical studies and retrospective case collections discussing management and outcomes in SAPHO involving five or more participants were included. Articles not published in English, studies not reporting defined outcomes, and studies solely relying on patient-reported outcomes were excluded.
RESULTS
A total of 28 studies (20 observational, 8 open-label clinical studies) reporting 796 patients of predominantly European ethnicity were included. Reported therapies varied greatly, with many centres using multiple treatments in parallel. Most patients (37.1%) received non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs alone or in combination. Bisphosphonates (22.1%), conventional (21.7%) and biological (11.3%) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs were the next most frequently reported treatments. Reported outcomes varied and delivered mixed results, which complicates comparisons. Bisphosphonates demonstrated the most consistent improvement of osteoarticular symptoms and were associated with transient influenza-like symptoms. Paradoxical skin reactions were reported in patients treated with TNF inhibitors, but no serious adverse events were recorded. Most treatments had limited or mixed effects on cutaneous involvement. A recent study investigating the Janus kinase inhibitor tofacitinib delivered promising results in relation to skin and nail involvement.
CONCLUSIONS
No single currently available treatment option sufficiently addresses all SAPHO-associated symptoms. Variable, sometimes descriptive outcomes and the use of treatment combinations complicate conclusions and treatment recommendations. Randomised clinical trials are necessary to generate reliable evidence.
Topics: Humans; Acquired Hyperostosis Syndrome; Osteitis; Retrospective Studies; Prospective Studies; Synovitis; Hyperostosis; Acne Vulgaris; Diphosphonates
PubMed: 38151265
DOI: 10.1136/rmdopen-2023-003688 -
Drug Delivery and Translational Research Jun 2023Needle-free jet injectors are used for the intralesional treatment of various dermatological indications. However, a systematic review that evaluates the efficacy and... (Review)
Review
Needle-free jet injectors are used for the intralesional treatment of various dermatological indications. However, a systematic review that evaluates the efficacy and safety of these treatments has not been published. The objectives of this study are to evaluate the efficacy and safety of needle-free jet injections for dermatological indications and to provide evidence-based treatment recommendations. An electronic literature search was conducted in April 2022. Two reviewers independently selected studies based on predefined criteria and performed a methodological quality assessment using the Cochrane Collaborations risk-of-bias 2.0 assessment tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Thirty-seven articles were included, involving 1911 participants. Dermatological indications included scars, alopecia areata, hyperhidrosis, nail diseases, non-melanoma skin cancer, common warts, local anesthesia, and aesthetic indications. Keloids and other types of scars (hypertrophic, atrophic, and burn scars) were investigated most frequently (n = 7). The included studies reported favorable efficacy and safety outcomes for intralesional jet injector-assisted treatment with triamcinolone acetonide/hexacetonide, 5-fluorouracil, bleomycin, or hyaluronic acid. Two high-quality studies showed good efficacy and tolerability of intralesional jet injections with a combination of 5-fluorouracil and triamcinolone acetonide in hypertrophic scars and with saline in boxcar and rolling acne scars. No serious adverse reactions and good tolerability were reported in the included studies. Overall, the methodological quality of the included studies was low. Limited evidence suggests that needle-free jet injector-assisted intralesional treatment is efficacious and safe for hypertrophic and atrophic acne scars. More well-powered RCTs investigating the efficacy and safety of jet injector treatment in dermatology are warranted to make further evidence-based recommendations.
Topics: Humans; Triamcinolone Acetonide; Dermatology; Keloid; Fluorouracil; Acne Vulgaris; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 36884194
DOI: 10.1007/s13346-023-01295-x -
Cureus Mar 2024The treatment of acne vulgaris poses a significant challenge due to its chronic nature and potential influence on patients' quality of life. Isotretinoin, a systemic... (Review)
Review
The treatment of acne vulgaris poses a significant challenge due to its chronic nature and potential influence on patients' quality of life. Isotretinoin, a systemic retinoid, has emerged as one of the most efficient treatment options for chronic, severe acne. However, the use of isotretinoin is associated with a range of side effects that require careful consideration. This review article provides a comprehensive overview of the side effects linked to isotretinoin treatment for acne vulgaris. Through an analysis of existing literature and clinical studies, we discuss the various adverse reactions, their incidence, management strategies, and the influence of these side effects on patients' quality of life.
PubMed: 38601403
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.55946 -
Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) Jan 2023Hot and humid countries such as Indonesia have a higher prevalence of acne vulgaris (AV). The activity of skin microbes, not only , contribute to the formation of AV.... (Review)
Review
Hot and humid countries such as Indonesia have a higher prevalence of acne vulgaris (AV). The activity of skin microbes, not only , contribute to the formation of AV. Topical and oral antibiotics are routinely prescribed to treat AV. As antimicrobial resistance rates increase globally, there are concerns about decreased efficacy. This study intends to systematically evaluate the microbiomes isolated from AV lesions and their antibiotics susceptibility in Indonesia. The data were retrieved through PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and ScienceDirect searches for articles published until July 2022 using three multiword searches. Sixteen studies published between 2001 and 2022 were identified from which the data were pooled using a random effects model. The pooled prevalence estimates demonstrated that , , and were the three common microbes associated with AV in Indonesia. Tetracyclines had lower resistance rates compared to those of macrolides and clindamycin, with showing a resistance rate that is as high as 60.1% against macrolides. resistance against minocycline showed an increasing trend, whereas the resistances to doxycycline, clindamycin, and macrolides stagnated. The high resistance prevalence and trends signify a public health concern. The results of this study call for the development of antibiotic stewardship programs in Indonesia, which may lead to improved acne outcomes.
PubMed: 36671346
DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics12010145 -
Annals of Palliative Medicine Feb 2022First-line medications for acne vulgaris include retinoids and antibiotics. Dapsone is a topical drug approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the treatment... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
First-line medications for acne vulgaris include retinoids and antibiotics. Dapsone is a topical drug approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of acne. However, due to its side effects, the clinical application of dapsone has not been promoted, and the value of the medication is still unclear. The aim of this study is to determine the efficacy and safety of dapsone gel in patients with acne.
METHODS
Systematic searches were performed using the following databases on January 4, 2020: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), China Biomedical Literature Service System (SinoMed), China Science and Technology Journal Database (CQVIP), and Wanfang Data Knowledge Service Platform. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was then conducted to analyze the efficacy and adverse events of dapsone gel treatment compared with excipient and other drug therapies. RevMan 5.3 software was used to calculate the odds ratio (OR), and the confidence interval (CI) was 95%.
RESULTS
Data of 11,424 participants across 7 trials which met the inclusion criteria were analyzed. Meta-analysis showed that dapsone gel alone or dapsone gel combined with isotretinoin was superior to excipient alone or oral isotretinoin alone in the treatment of acne (OR =1.51, 95% CI: 1.38-1.66, P<0.0001 random effects model, I2=0%). This indicates that dapsone gel is effective for the treatment of acne. We also found that dapsone gel is a more effective treatment for females (OR =1.80, 95% CI: 1.46-2.23). There was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse events between the dapsone group and the control group (OR =0.94, 95% CI: 0.82-1.14, P=0.24 random effects model; I2=29%). The common local adverse reactions in the dapsone group, such as dryness, heat, and eczema, were not statistically significant compared with those in the control group, and the side effects were transient.
DISCUSSION
Dapsone gel is effective in treating acne, and there is no significant difference in adverse events compared with other drugs.
Topics: Acne Vulgaris; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Dapsone; Eczema; Female; Humans; Treatment Outcome; United States
PubMed: 35249339
DOI: 10.21037/apm-21-3935 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2020Metformin has been proposed as possibly a safer and more effective long-term treatment than the oral contraceptive pill (OCP) in women with polycystic ovary syndrome... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Metformin has been proposed as possibly a safer and more effective long-term treatment than the oral contraceptive pill (OCP) in women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). It is important to directly compare the efficacy and safety of metformin versus OCP in the long-term treatment of women with PCOS. This is an update of a Cochrane Review comparing insulin sensitising agents with the OCP and only includes studies on metformin.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of metformin versus the OCP (alone or in combination) in improving clinical, hormonal, and metabolic features of PCOS.
SEARCH METHODS
In August 2019 we searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL, the trial registers, handsearched references of the identified articles, and contacted experts in the field to identify additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of the use of metformin versus the OCP (alone or in combination) for women with PCOS.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methods recommended by Cochrane. The primary review outcomes were the clinical parameters of hirsutism and adverse events, both severe (requiring stopping of medication), and minor. In the presence of substantial heterogeneity (I statistic > 50), which could be explained by pre-specified subgroup analyses on the basis of BMI, we reported the subgroups separately.
MAIN RESULTS
This is a substantive update. We identified 38 additional studies. We included 44 RCTs (2253 women), which comprised 39 RCTs on adult women (2047 women) and five RCTs on adolescent women (206 women). Evidence quality ranged from very low to low. The main limitations were risk of bias, imprecision and inconsistency. Metformin versus the OCP In adult women, we are uncertain of the effect of metformin compared to the OCP on hirsutism in subgroup body mass index (BMI) < 25 kg/m (mean difference (MD) 0.38, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.44 to 1.19, 3 RCTs, n = 134, I = 50%, very low-quality evidence) and subgroup BMI > 30 kg/m (MD -0.38, 95% CI -1.93 to 1.17; 2 RCTs, n = 85, I = 34%, low-quality evidence). Metformin may be less effective in improving hirsutism compared to the OCP in the subgroup BMI 25 kg/m to 30 kg/m (MD 1.92, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.64, 5 RCTs, n = 254, I = 0%, low-quality evidence). Metformin may increase severe gastro-intestinal adverse events rate compared to the OCP (Peto odds ratio (OR) 6.42, 95% CI 2.98 to 13.84, 11 RCTs, n = 602, I = 0%, low-quality evidence). Metformin may decrease the incidence of severe other adverse events compared to the OCP (Peto OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.44, 8 RCTs, n = 363, I = 0%, low-quality evidence). There were no trials reporting on minor adverse events. In adolescents, we are uncertain whether there is a difference between Metformin and the OCP, on hirsutism and adverse events. Metformin versus metformin combined with the OCP In adult women, metformin may be less effective in improving hirsutism compared to Metformin combined with the OCP (MD 1.36, 95% CI 0.62 to 2.11, 3 RCTs, n = 135, I= 9%, low-quality evidence). We are uncertain if there was a difference between metformin and metformin combined with the OCP for severe gastro-intestinal adverse events (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.21 to 2.53, 3 RCTs, n = 171, I = 0%, low-quality evidence), or for severe other adverse events (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.11 to 2.82, 2 RCTs, n = 109, I = 44%, low-quality evidence). There were no trials reporting on minor adverse events. In adolescents, there were no trials for this comparison. The OCP versus metformin combined with the OCP In adult women, the OCP may be less effective in improving hirsutism compared to metformin combined with the OCP (MD 0.54, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.89, 6 RCTs, n = 389, I= 1%, low-quality evidence). The OCP may decrease the incidence of severe gastro-intestinal adverse events compared to metformin combined with the OCP (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.72, 5 RCTs, n = 228, I = 0%, low-quality evidence). We are uncertain if there is a difference between the OCP and metformin combined with the OCP for severe other adverse events (OR 1.61, 95% CI 0.49 to 5.37, 4 RCTs, n = 159, I = 12%, low-quality evidence). The OCP may decrease the incidence of minor (gastro-intestinal) adverse events compared to metformin combined with the OCP (OR 0.06, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.44, 2 RCTs, n = 98, I = 0%, low-quality evidence). In adolescents, we are uncertain whether there is a difference between the OCP, compared to metformin combined with the OCP, on hirsutism or adverse events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In adult women with PCOS, metformin may be less effective in improving hirsutism compared to the OCP in the subgroup BMI 25 kg/m to 30 kg/m but we are uncertain if there was a difference between metformin and the OCP in subgroups BMI < 25 kg/m and BMI > 30kg/m. Compared to the OCP, metformin may increase the incidence of severe gastro-intestinal adverse events and decrease the incidence of severe other adverse events with no trials reporting on minor adverse events. Either metformin alone or the OCP alone may be less effective in improving hirsutism compared to metformin combined with the OCP. We are uncertain whether there is a difference between the OCP alone and metformin alone compared to metformin combined with the OCP for severe or minor adverse events except for the OCP versus metformin combined with the OCP where the OCP may decrease the incidence of severe and minor gastro-intestinal adverse events. In adolescent women with PCOS, we are uncertain whether there is a difference between any of the comparisons for hirsutism and adverse events due to either no evidence or very low-quality evidence. Further large well-designed RCTs that stratify for BMI are needed to evaluate metformin versus the OCP and combinations in women with PCOS, in particular adolescent women.
Topics: Acne Vulgaris; Adolescent; Adult; Body Mass Index; Cardiovascular Diseases; Contraceptives, Oral, Combined; Drug Therapy, Combination; Endometrial Neoplasms; Female; Hirsutism; Humans; Hypoglycemic Agents; Menstruation Disturbances; Metformin; Polycystic Ovary Syndrome; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Young Adult
PubMed: 32794179
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005552.pub3