The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

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

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

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.

0007-0963
639-649
Mavranezouli, Ifigeneia
971b821a-c12d-404d-8e51-a06644db63a1
Daly, Caitlin H
a861fc8d-7883-4d31-a419-24afae4c0bf9
Welton, Nicky J
4398a588-6ada-47aa-af18-94654e12d47e
Deshpande, Shalmali
1fc4d61c-14c3-4729-883e-d7444acd5967
Berg, Laura
f1035a47-7c19-4bab-aa24-a91950620a3b
Bromham, Nathan
53db1928-da4c-4102-b51d-dc8c940bbca8
Arnold, Stephanie
fb8870b1-af35-4fb9-8010-c0c2962e4e29
Phillippo, David M
063913ea-27a1-473e-9286-70d8019720ce
Wilcock, Jane
3139a824-177f-403e-b283-cac430ef23ed
Xu, Jingyuan
e2b8a005-5eba-47ee-9744-be1663f2b46e
Ravenscroft, Jane C
3829aaf0-1391-48a8-945a-e05d278b35d6
Wood, Damien
a3319086-a02f-4737-a303-0a20cf234850
Rafiq, Mohammed
ffcfc010-fe42-4093-bef6-c1f1c4255c60
Fou, Linyun
b8df778d-87df-4b52-91bb-90811c6f8fb4
Dworzynski, Katharina
1db65abf-7629-4b7c-94fe-1f77f2b02a2d
Healy, Eugene
400fc04d-f81a-474a-ae25-7ff894be0ebd
Mavranezouli, Ifigeneia
971b821a-c12d-404d-8e51-a06644db63a1
Daly, Caitlin H
a861fc8d-7883-4d31-a419-24afae4c0bf9
Welton, Nicky J
4398a588-6ada-47aa-af18-94654e12d47e
Deshpande, Shalmali
1fc4d61c-14c3-4729-883e-d7444acd5967
Berg, Laura
f1035a47-7c19-4bab-aa24-a91950620a3b
Bromham, Nathan
53db1928-da4c-4102-b51d-dc8c940bbca8
Arnold, Stephanie
fb8870b1-af35-4fb9-8010-c0c2962e4e29
Phillippo, David M
063913ea-27a1-473e-9286-70d8019720ce
Wilcock, Jane
3139a824-177f-403e-b283-cac430ef23ed
Xu, Jingyuan
e2b8a005-5eba-47ee-9744-be1663f2b46e
Ravenscroft, Jane C
3829aaf0-1391-48a8-945a-e05d278b35d6
Wood, Damien
a3319086-a02f-4737-a303-0a20cf234850
Rafiq, Mohammed
ffcfc010-fe42-4093-bef6-c1f1c4255c60
Fou, Linyun
b8df778d-87df-4b52-91bb-90811c6f8fb4
Dworzynski, Katharina
1db65abf-7629-4b7c-94fe-1f77f2b02a2d
Healy, Eugene
400fc04d-f81a-474a-ae25-7ff894be0ebd

Mavranezouli, Ifigeneia, Daly, Caitlin H, Welton, Nicky J, Deshpande, Shalmali, Berg, Laura, Bromham, Nathan, Arnold, Stephanie, Phillippo, David M, Wilcock, Jane, Xu, Jingyuan, Ravenscroft, Jane C, Wood, Damien, Rafiq, Mohammed, Fou, Linyun, Dworzynski, Katharina and Healy, Eugene (2022) A systematic review and network meta-analysis of topical pharmacological, oral pharmacological, physical and combined treatments for acne vulgaris. British Journal of Dermatology, 187 (5), 639-649. (doi:10.1111/bjd.21739).

Record type: Review

Abstract

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.

Text
Br J Dermatol - 2022 - Mavranezouli - A systematic review and network meta‐analysis of topical pharmacological oral - Accepted Manuscript
Download (1MB)

More information

Accepted/In Press date: 2 July 2022
e-pub ahead of print date: 5 July 2022
Published date: 1 November 2022
Additional Information: Funding Information: This work was undertaken by the National Guideline Alliance (NGA) at the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG), with support from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Guidelines Technical Support Unit, University of Bristol, which is funded by the NICE Centre for Guidelines. NGA has received funding from NICE to develop clinical, public health and social care guidelines. For the development of this guideline, NICE worked with the British Association of Dermatologists. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of RCOG, NGA or NICE. The funder of the study had no further role in the study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation or writing of the report. All authors had full access to all the data in the study and had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2021) Acne vulgaris: management. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng198 Publisher Copyright: © 2022 The Authors. British Journal of Dermatology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Association of Dermatologists.

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 468379
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/468379
ISSN: 0007-0963
PURE UUID: b93671af-b657-4a15-b5c7-957ce70c972b

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 11 Aug 2022 17:02
Last modified: 16 Mar 2024 21:09

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Ifigeneia Mavranezouli
Author: Caitlin H Daly
Author: Nicky J Welton
Author: Shalmali Deshpande
Author: Laura Berg
Author: Nathan Bromham
Author: Stephanie Arnold
Author: David M Phillippo
Author: Jane Wilcock
Author: Jingyuan Xu
Author: Jane C Ravenscroft
Author: Damien Wood
Author: Mohammed Rafiq
Author: Linyun Fou
Author: Katharina Dworzynski
Author: Eugene Healy

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×