10
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

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

      review-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          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.

          Abstract

          This systematic review and network meta‐analysis has synthesized evidence to assess the comparative efficacy, acceptability and tolerability of topical pharmacological, oral pharmacological, physical and combined treatments for mild‐to‐moderate and moderate‐to‐severe acne vulgaris. The findings of this study, along with clinical and cost‐effectiveness considerations, informed national guidance on the management of acne vulgaris, published by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE).

          Linked Comment: T. Evrenoglou. Br J Dermatol 2022; 187:637–638.

          Plain language summary available online

          Related collections

          Most cited references39

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations.

            The PRISMA statement is a reporting guideline designed to improve the completeness of reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Authors have used this guideline worldwide to prepare their reviews for publication. In the past, these reports typically compared 2 treatment alternatives. With the evolution of systematic reviews that compare multiple treatments, some of them only indirectly, authors face novel challenges for conducting and reporting their reviews. This extension of the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) statement was developed specifically to improve the reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses. A group of experts participated in a systematic review, Delphi survey, and face-to-face discussion and consensus meeting to establish new checklist items for this extension statement. Current PRISMA items were also clarified. A modified, 32-item PRISMA extension checklist was developed to address what the group considered to be immediately relevant to the reporting of network meta-analyses. This document presents the extension and provides examples of good reporting, as well as elaborations regarding the rationale for new checklist items and the modification of previously existing items from the PRISMA statement. It also highlights educational information related to key considerations in the practice of network meta-analysis. The target audience includes authors and readers of network meta-analyses, as well as journal editors and peer reviewers.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Book: not found

              Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                i.mavranezouli@ucl.ac.uk
                Journal
                Br J Dermatol
                Br J Dermatol
                10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2133
                BJD
                The British Journal of Dermatology
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                0007-0963
                1365-2133
                22 August 2022
                November 2022
                : 187
                : 5 ( doiID: 10.1111/bjd.v187.5 )
                : 639-649
                Affiliations
                [ 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
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence

                Ifigeneia Mavranezouli

                Email: i.mavranezouli@ 123456ucl.ac.uk

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9095-3566
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1609-7084
                Article
                BJD21739 BJD-2022-0143.R3
                10.1111/bjd.21739
                9804728
                35789996
                f1a64064-525a-41ac-8766-7bdd97ee64e2
                © 2022 The Authors. British Journal of Dermatology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Association of Dermatologists.

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.

                History
                : 27 June 2022
                : 24 January 2022
                : 02 July 2022
                Page count
                Figures: 3, Tables: 2, Pages: 649, Words: 9581
                Funding
                Funded by: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence , doi 10.13039/100010377;
                Categories
                Systematic Review
                Evidence‐Based Dermatology
                Systematic Review
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                November 2022
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:6.2.3 mode:remove_FC converted:31.12.2022

                Dermatology
                Dermatology

                Comments

                Comment on this article