-
Journal of the European Academy of... Jun 2024Acne is a common skin condition, but little data exist on the comparative efficacy of topical acne therapies. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis... (Review)
Review
Acne is a common skin condition, but little data exist on the comparative efficacy of topical acne therapies. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of topical therapies for mild-to-moderate acne. Searches in PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL via Ovid, Embase via Ovid and Web of Science were conducted on 29 November 2021. Randomized controlled trials examining ≥12 weeks of topical treatments for acne vulgaris in subjects aged 12 and older were included. Main outcomes were absolute or percent change in acne lesion count and treatment success on the Investigator's Global Assessment scale. Thirty-five randomized clinical trials with 33,472 participants comparing nine different topical agents were included. Adapalene-benzoyl peroxide (BPO), clindamycin-BPO and clindamycin-tretinoin demonstrated the greatest reduction in non-inflammatory (ratio of means [RoM] 1.76; 95% CI [1.46; 2.12], RoM 1.70; 95% CI [1.44; 2.02] and RoM 1.87; 95% CI [1.53; 2.30], respectively), inflammatory (RoM 1.56; 95% CI [1.44; 1.70], RoM 1.49; 95% CI [1.39; 1.60] and RoM 1.48; 95% CI [1.36; 1.61], respectively) and total lesion count (ROM 1.67; 95% CI [1.47; 1.90], RoM 1.59; 95% CI [1.42; 1.79] and RoM 1.64; 95% CI [1.42; 1.89], respectively) compared to placebo. All single agents outperformed placebo except tazarotene, which did not significantly outperform placebo for inflammatory and non-inflammatory lesion count reduction. Most combination agents significantly outperformed their individual components in lesion count reduction and global assessment scores, except for clindamycin-tretinoin and clindamycin-BPO, which did not significantly outperform tretinoin (RoM 1.13; 95% CI [0.94; 1.36]) and BPO (RoM = 1.15, 95% CI [0.98; 1.36]), respectively, for non-inflammatory lesion reduction. There was no significant difference amongst most single agents when evaluating lesion count reduction. Combination agents are generally most effective for mild-to-moderate acne; however for non-inflammatory acne, the addition of clindamycin in topical regimens is unnecessary and should be avoided.
PubMed: 38943431
DOI: 10.1111/jdv.20154 -
Acta Medica Philippina 2024Pityriasis versicolor is a common fungal infection of the superficial skin layer caused by , a normal commensal in the skin. Keratolytic agents are popular, cheap, and...
BACKGROUND
Pityriasis versicolor is a common fungal infection of the superficial skin layer caused by , a normal commensal in the skin. Keratolytic agents are popular, cheap, and readily available over-the-counter treatments for pityriasis versicolor. Conventional antifungal agents are more expensive, requiring prescription, and may induce resistant strains. However, evidence of their comparative safety and efficacy is still lacking.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of synthetic antifungals compared to keratolytic agents in the topical treatment of pityriasis versicolor through a systematic review.
METHODS
We searched the following databases: MEDLINE (from 1966) through PubMed, CENTRAL (Issue 9 of 12, September 2021), EMBASE (from 1974), LILACS (from 1987); Herdin (from 1970), www.clinicaltrials.gov, www.isrctn.com, www.trialregister.nl. We contacted researchers in the field, hand searched relevant conference abstracts, and the Journal of the Philippine Dermatological Society 1992-2019. We included all randomized controlled trials involving patients with diagnosed active pityriasis versicolor where topical antifungal was compared with a topical keratolytic for treatment. Two review authors independently applied eligibility criteria, assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane collaboration tool, and extracted data from included studies. We used RevMan 5.3 to pool dichotomous outcomes using risk ratios (RR) and continuous outcomes using the mean difference (MD), using random-effects meta-analysis. We tested for statistical heterogeneity using both the Chi² test and the I² test. We presented results using forest plots with 95% confidence intervals. We planned to create a funnel plot to determine publication bias but were unable to due to few studies. A Summary of Findings table was created using GRADE profile software for the primary outcomes.
RESULTS
We included 8 RCTs with a total of 617 participants that compared azole preparations (ketoconazole, bifonazole and econazole) versus keratolytic agents (selenium sulfide, adapalene, salicylic-benzoic acid). Pooled data showed that azoles did not significantly differ from keratolytic agents for clinical cure (RR 0.99, 0.88, 1.12; 4 RCTs, N=274, I=55%; very low-quality evidence), and adverse events (0.59 [0.17, 2.06]; very low-quality evidence) based on 6 RCTs (N=536). There were two patients given a keratolytic agent (selenium sulfide shampoo) who had acute dermatitis and discontinued treatment.
CONCLUSION
It is uncertain whether topical azoles are as effective as keratolytic agents in clinical clearance and occurrence of adverse events in patients with pityriasis versicolor. A wider search of grey literature and local studies are warranted. Larger RCTs with low risk of bias are recommended.
PubMed: 38939846
DOI: 10.47895/amp.vi0.5605 -
Archives of Dermatological Research Jun 2024Acanthosis nigricans (AN), with an estimated prevalence of 19.4% in the U.S., presents as hyperpigmented, velvety plaques in intertriginous regions. Acanthosis... (Review)
Review
Acanthosis nigricans (AN), with an estimated prevalence of 19.4% in the U.S., presents as hyperpigmented, velvety plaques in intertriginous regions. Acanthosis Nigricans negatively affects psychological well-being and particularly impacts skin of color individuals. Addressing the underlying cause of acanthosis nigricans, as current guidelines recommend, is often challenging. This highlights the importance of skin directed treatment for acanthosis nigricans. This systematic review evaluated topical, laser, and oral treatments for acanthosis nigricans and provides evidence-based recommendations for clinical use. Adhering to PRISMA guidelines, we evaluated 19 clinical trials investigating topical, oral, and laser interventions for acanthosis nigricans. Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine guidelines were used to make clinical recommendations. We strongly recommend topical tretinoin (grade A) and endorse the appropriate use of adapalene gel, urea cream, and fractional carbon dioxide laser therapy (grade B). Further research is essential to enhance our understanding of alternative treatments to determine additional evidence-based recommendations. This review aims to guide clinicians in managing acanthosis nigricans, especially when direct treatment of underlying conditions is impractical.
Topics: Humans; Acanthosis Nigricans; Administration, Oral; Laser Therapy; Clinical Trials as Topic; Administration, Cutaneous; Evidence-Based Medicine; Dermatologic Agents; Administration, Topical; Lasers, Gas; Tretinoin; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 38904687
DOI: 10.1007/s00403-024-02931-3 -
Cureus Apr 2024Acne vulgaris, commonly called acne, is a skin condition affecting many individuals globally. It is a chronic condition characterized by developing pimples, blackheads... (Review)
Review
Acne vulgaris, commonly called acne, is a skin condition affecting many individuals globally. It is a chronic condition characterized by developing pimples, blackheads (open comedones), whiteheads (closed comedones), and other skin lesions. Acne usually appears on the face, neck, chest, and back. It is commonly associated with puberty and adolescence but can also affect adults of all ages. Acne can be very frustrating and embarrassing, leading to low self-esteem and social isolation. The condition arises from various factors, including clogged pores, excessive sebum production, bacteria, and inflammation. This systematic review assesses the effectiveness of topical antibiotics, retinoids, niacinamide, azelaic acid, and clascoterone in treating mild-to-moderate acne vulgaris. A comprehensive search across PubMed, PubMed Central, and Google Scholar yielded 10 articles focused on topical antibiotics, with findings from 198 subjects indicating the efficacy of doxycycline against inflammatory lesions. Retinoids, such as tretinoin and adapalene, significantly improved both lesion types (open and closed comedones). Niacinamide, examined in a randomized controlled trial involving 41 participants, reduced sebum production. Another study with 60 patients revealed that azelaic acid effectively reduced both inflammatory and non-inflammatory lesions. Clascoterone emerged as a promising antiandrogenic treatment, supported by a randomized controlled trial involving 4,440 patients. It is essential that individualized therapy, incorporating patient preferences and considering adverse effects, is emphasized for optimizing acne management.
PubMed: 38725769
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.57909 -
Journal of Drugs in Dermatology : JDD Apr 2024Multiple treatment options exist for the management of moderate-to-severe acne. However, the comparative effectiveness (efficacy/safety) of moderate-to-severe acne... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Multiple treatment options exist for the management of moderate-to-severe acne. However, the comparative effectiveness (efficacy/safety) of moderate-to-severe acne treatments has not been systematically examined.
METHODS
A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials of ≥4 weeks of treatment (topical, oral, physical, or combinations) for moderate-to-severe facial acne in patients aged ≥9 years. Efficacy outcomes included: percentage of patients achieving ≥2-grade reduction from baseline and “clear” or “almost clear” for global severity score (treatment success); absolute change in inflammatory (ILs reduction); and noninflammatory lesion counts (NILs reduction). A random-effects network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted for the efficacy outcomes. Treatments were ranked with posterior rank plots and surface under cumulative ranking values. Results: Eighty-five studies were included in the SLR/NMA. Topical triple-agent fixed-dose combination (FDC) gel (clindamycin phosphate 1.2%/adapalene 0.15%/benzoyl peroxide 3.1%) and combinations of double-agent fixed-dose topical treatments with oral antibiotics (TOA3) consistently ranked in the top 3 treatments. Topical triple-agent FDC gel was numerically superior to TOA3 for treatment success (log-odds ratios: 1.84 [95% credible interval (CrI) 1.36 to 2.29]) and 1.69 (95% CrI: 1.01 to 2.32) vs placebo/vehicle). TOA3 was numerically superior to topical triple-agent FDC gel for reduction of ILs (mean difference: -8.21 [-10.33 to -6.13]) and -10.40 [-13.44 to -7.14] vs placebo/vehicle) and NILs (mean difference: -13.41 [-16.69 to -10.32] and -17.74 [-22.56 to -12.85] vs placebo/vehicle).
CONCLUSIONS
Based on this SLR/NMA, topical triple-agent FDC gel was the most efficacious and safe treatment for moderate-to-severe acne. J Drugs Dermatol. 2024;23(4): doi:10.36849/JDD.8148.
Topics: Humans; Dermatologic Agents; Benzoyl Peroxide; Acne Vulgaris; Network Meta-Analysis; Drug Combinations; Adapalene, Benzoyl Peroxide Drug Combination; Treatment Outcome; Gels
PubMed: 38564399
DOI: 10.36849/JDD.8148 -
Journal of the American Academy of... May 2024Acne vulgaris commonly affects adults, adolescents, and preadolescents aged 9 years or older.
BACKGROUND
Acne vulgaris commonly affects adults, adolescents, and preadolescents aged 9 years or older.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this study was to provide evidence-based recommendations for the management of acne.
METHODS
A work group conducted a systematic review and applied the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach for assessing the certainty of evidence and formulating and grading recommendations.
RESULTS
This guideline presents 18 evidence-based recommendations and 5 good practice statements. Strong recommendations are made for benzoyl peroxide, topical retinoids, topical antibiotics, and oral doxycycline. Oral isotretinoin is strongly recommended for acne that is severe, causing psychosocial burden or scarring, or failing standard oral or topical therapy. Conditional recommendations are made for topical clascoterone, salicylic acid, and azelaic acid, as well as for oral minocycline, sarecycline, combined oral contraceptive pills, and spironolactone. Combining topical therapies with multiple mechanisms of action, limiting systemic antibiotic use, combining systemic antibiotics with topical therapies, and adding intralesional corticosteroid injections for larger acne lesions are recommended as good practice statements.
LIMITATIONS
Analysis is based on the best available evidence at the time of the systematic review.
CONCLUSIONS
These guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations for the management of acne vulgaris.
Topics: Adult; Adolescent; Humans; Acne Vulgaris; Benzoyl Peroxide; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Isotretinoin; Retinoids; Dermatologic Agents
PubMed: 38300170
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2023.12.017 -
The British Journal of Dermatology Sep 2021Acne is very common and can have a substantial impact on wellbeing. Guidelines suggest first-line management with topical treatments, but there is little evidence... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Acne is very common and can have a substantial impact on wellbeing. Guidelines suggest first-line management with topical treatments, but there is little evidence regarding which treatments are most effective.
OBJECTIVES
To identify the most effective and best tolerated topical treatments for acne using network meta-analysis.
METHODS
CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and World Health Organization Trials Registry were searched from inception to June 2020 for randomized trials that included participants with mild/moderate acne. Primary outcomes were self-reported improvement in acne, and trial withdrawal. Secondary outcomes included change in lesion counts, Investigator's Global Assessment, change in quality of life and total number of adverse events. Network meta-analysis was undertaken using a frequentist approach. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and confidence in evidence was assessed using CINeMA.
RESULTS
A total of 81 papers were included, reporting 40 trials with a total of 18 089 participants. Patient Global Assessment of Improvement was reported in 11 trials. Based on the pooled network estimates, compared with vehicle, benzoyl peroxide (BPO) was effective (35% vs. 26%) for improving self-reported acne. The combinations of BPO with adapalene (54% vs. 35%) or with clindamycin (49% vs. 35%) were ranked more effective than BPO alone. The withdrawal of participants from the trial was reported in 35 trials. The number of patients withdrawing owing to adverse events was low for all treatments. Rates of withdrawal were slightly higher for BPO with adapalene (2·5%) or clindamycin (2·7%) than BPO (1·6%) or adapalene alone (1·0%). Overall confidence in the evidence was low.
CONCLUSIONS
Adapalene in combination with BPO may be the most effective treatment for acne but with a slightly higher incidence of withdrawal than monotherapy. Inconsistent reporting of trial results precluded firmer conclusions.
Topics: Acne Vulgaris; Adapalene; Benzoyl Peroxide; Dermatologic Agents; Drug Combinations; Gels; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Quality of Life; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33825196
DOI: 10.1111/bjd.20080 -
Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology Dec 2021Perioral dermatitis is a common cutaneous condition characterized by acneiform facial eruptions often with an eczematous appearance. A granulomatous subtype exists in... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Perioral dermatitis is a common cutaneous condition characterized by acneiform facial eruptions often with an eczematous appearance. A granulomatous subtype exists in addition to the classic variant. While topical corticosteroids have been largely implicated in this condition, its etiology is not completely understood.
METHODS
Using the keywords "corticosteroids," "dermatology," "fusobacteria," "perioral dermatitis," and "periorificial dermatitis," we searched the databases PubMed, MEDLINE, and EMBASE to find the relevant literature. Only articles in English were chosen. The level of evidence was evaluated and selected according to the highest level working our way downwards using the Oxford Centre of Evidence-Based Medicine 2011 guidance.
RESULTS
This systematic review found the strongest evidence to support topical corticosteroid misuse as the principal causative factor in the pathogenesis of perioral dermatitis.
CONCLUSION
In terms of treatment, further research is required to robustly investigate promising treatment options including tetracyclines, topical metronidazole, topical azelaic acid, adapalene gel, and oral isotretinoin.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Dermatitis, Perioral; Dermatologic Agents; Humans; Isotretinoin; Metronidazole
PubMed: 33751778
DOI: 10.1111/jocd.14060 -
European Journal of Oncology Nursing :... Feb 2021To investigate the effectiveness of different interventions for the prevention and treatment of EGFRI treatment-induced rash (EGFRIr) that appeared in the last decade,...
The extent to which the last decade has yielded additional treatment options for EGFR-associated rash besides classic treatment with antibiotics and corticosteroids - A systematic review.
PURPOSE
To investigate the effectiveness of different interventions for the prevention and treatment of EGFRI treatment-induced rash (EGFRIr) that appeared in the last decade, excluding antibiotics and steroids products alone.
METHOD
A systematic review was performed in 2019 and was updated in 2020. The search strategy was limited to studies published within the last 10 years on the Medline database accessed via Pubmed and the Cochrane database. The search was performed using keywords combined with AND, OR.
RESULTS
The search yielded thirteen studies. The studies were divided into two categories, based on the intervention method used: four studies used creams containing vitamin K1 or vitamin K3 (henceforth classified as "Category A″) and nine studies ("Category B″) focused on different intervention methods such as laser treatment, Polydatin (PD) cream treatment, treatment with sunscreen, Adapalene gel treatment, topical aloe vera treatment, topical hydration treatment, the impact of a pre-emptive skin treatment and, finally, epidermal growth factor (EGF) ointment treatment. From "Category A″, the results vary as two studies found no benefit from cream use, while two studies indicated a possible improvement on skin reactions from cream use. In "Category B″, a benefit due to laser treatment was indicated, Polydatin-containing moisturizer showed a reduction in the incidence of rash grade ≥ II in patients treated with afatinib, while treatment with sunscreen demonstrated no benefit for the prevention of EGFRIr. Additionally, Adapalene gel use is not recommended as prophylaxis for EGFRIr, topical aloe vera may be used in the management for EGFRIr due to cetuximab, topical hydration resolved the EFGRIr, the pre-emptive skin treatment routine was well tolerated and the epidermal growth factor ointment improved all the symptoms due to EGFRI.
CONCLUSIONS
The results from the studies vary, although this study focuses on reviewing treatment interventions that can be utilized, apart from antibiotics and steroids, in order to alleviate the problems of the patients suffering from EGFRIr. More specifically, the authors of this review cannot draw a conclusion from "Category A″, as the efficacy of vitamin K for the management of EGFRIr is controversial. From "Category B″, some of the suggested treatments show encouraging results, while others may prove ineffective and rather harmful for the patients.
Topics: Administration, Topical; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Drug Eruptions; ErbB Receptors; Exanthema; Humans; Protein Kinase Inhibitors
PubMed: 33493993
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejon.2021.101896 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2020Acne 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... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
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.
Topics: Acne Vulgaris; Adapalene; Adolescent; Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Benzoyl Peroxide; Bias; Child; Clindamycin; Dermatologic Agents; Dicarboxylic Acids; Erythromycin; Female; Glycolates; Humans; Keratolytic Agents; Male; Mandelic Acids; Niacinamide; Patient Dropouts; Pyruvic Acid; Quality of Life; Salicylic Acid; Sulfur; Tretinoin; Young Adult; Zinc
PubMed: 32356369
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011368.pub2