The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of spironolactone in treating persistent facial acne in women: SAFA double-blinded RCT

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of spironolactone in treating persistent facial acne in women: SAFA double-blinded RCT
Clinical and cost-effectiveness of spironolactone in treating persistent facial acne in women: SAFA double-blinded RCT

Background: acne is common, can cause significant impact on quality of life and is a frequent reason for long-term antibiotic use. Spironolactone has been prescribed for acne in women for many years, but robust evidence is lacking.

Objective: to evaluate whether spironolactone is clinically effective and cost-effective in treating acne in women.

Design: pragmatic, parallel, double-blind, randomised superiority trial.

Setting: primary and secondary healthcare and community settings (community and social media advertising).

Participants: Women aged 18 years and older with facial acne persisting for at least 6 months, judged to potentially warrant oral antibiotic treatment.

Interventions: Participants were randomised 1 : 1, using an independent web-based procedure, to either 50 mg/day spironolactone or matched placebo until week 6, increasing to 100 mg/day spironolactone or matched placebo until week 24. Participants continued usual topical treatment.

Main outcome measures: primary outcome was the adjusted mean difference in Acne-Specific Quality of Life symptom subscale score at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes included Acne-Specific Quality of Life total and subscales; participant self-assessed improvement; Investigator's Global Assessment; Participant's Global Assessment; satisfaction; adverse effects and cost-effectiveness.

Results: of 1267 women assessed for eligibility, 410 were randomised (201 intervention, 209 control), 342 in the primary analysis (176 intervention, 166 control). Mean age was 29.2 years (standard deviation 7.2) and 7.9% (28/356) were from non-white backgrounds. At baseline, Investigator's Global Assessment classified acne as mild in 46%, moderate in 40% and severe in 13%. At baseline, 82.9% were using topical treatments. Over 95% of participants in both groups tolerated the treatment and increased their dose. Mean baseline Acne-Specific Quality of Life symptom subscale was 13.0 (standard deviation 4.7) across both groups. Mean scores at week 12 were 19.2 (standard deviation 6.1) for spironolactone and 17.8 (standard deviation 5.6) for placebo [difference favouring spironolactone 1.27 (95% confidence interval 0.07 to 2.46) adjusting for baseline variables]. Mean scores at week 24 were 21.2 (standard deviation 5.9) in spironolactone group and 17.4 (standard deviation 5.8) in placebo group [adjusted difference 3.77 (95% confidence interval 2.50 to 5.03) adjusted]. Secondary outcomes also favoured spironolactone at 12 weeks with greater differences at 24 weeks. Participants taking spironolactone were more likely than those taking placebo to report overall acne improvement at 12 weeks {72.2% vs. 67.9% [adjusted odds ratio 1.16 (95% confidence interval 0.70 to 1.91)]} and at 24 weeks {81.9% vs. 63.3% [adjusted odds ratio 2.72 (95% confidence interval 1.50 to 4.93)]}. Investigator's Global Assessment was judged successful at week 12 for 31/201 (18.5%) taking spironolactone and 9/209 (5.6%) taking placebo [adjusted odds ratio 5.18 (95% confidence interval 2.18 to 12.28)]. Satisfaction with treatment improved in 70.6% of participants taking spironolactone compared with 43.1% taking placebo [adjusted odds ratio 3.12 (95% confidence interval 1.80 to 5.41)]. Adverse reactions were similar between groups, but headaches were reported more commonly on spironolactone (20.4% vs. 12.0%). No serious adverse reactions were reported. Taking account for missing data through multiple imputation gave an incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year of £27,879 (adjusted) compared to placebo or £2683 per quality-adjusted life-year compared to oral antibiotics.

Conclusions: spironolactone resulted in better participant-reported and investigator-reported outcomes than placebo, with greater differences at week 24 than week 12.

Trial registration: this trial is registered as ISRCTN12892056 and EudraCT (2018-003630-33).

Acne Vulgaris/drug therapy, Adolescent, Adult, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Double-Blind Method, Female, Humans, Mineralocorticoid Receptor Antagonists/therapeutic use, Quality of Life, Quality-Adjusted Life Years, Spironolactone/therapeutic use, Young Adult
1366-5278
Santer, Miriam
3ce7e832-31eb-4d27-9876-3a1cd7f381dc
Lawrence, Megan
e217da1e-b347-4129-b22f-0c8bae5eaf78
Pyne, Sarah
9f3f2284-d954-435c-a629-55edf67126af
Renz, Susanne
4537317b-9305-464a-af38-5dd50ed70258
Stuart, Beth L.
a6aaccd8-4df5-4406-9c37-499be8a57319
Sach, Tracey
5c09256f-ebed-4d14-853a-181f6c92d6f2
Ridd, Matthew
2f15120c-d5fa-4f5d-bb86-21356e034df7
Thomas, Kim S.
b3bc044e-811d-4dcb-ad36-7c6018c4bb04
Nuttall, Jacqueline
154aec0a-05f2-4379-918e-9c36767fdc4c
Permyakova, Natalia
27793eb1-9b3d-4194-8e80-8d0d4c0798ea
Eminton, Zina
44904d98-97be-4080-9a84-bf5742525f8e
Francis, Nick
9b610883-605c-4fee-871d-defaa86ccf8e
Little, Paul
1bf2d1f7-200c-47a5-ab16-fe5a8756a777
Muller, Ingrid
b532741c-7cd6-4834-b60d-90f9b9b12695
Soulsby, Irene
35236c31-871e-4f3a-a814-3a7365f32316
Thomas, Karen
6d182191-c867-491d-aaca-cb1d92a87074
Griffiths, Gareth
7fd300c0-d279-4ff6-842d-aa1f2b9b864d
Layton, Alison M.
5b851301-28e2-49f6-af30-a1bb7f35baa1
Santer, Miriam
3ce7e832-31eb-4d27-9876-3a1cd7f381dc
Lawrence, Megan
e217da1e-b347-4129-b22f-0c8bae5eaf78
Pyne, Sarah
9f3f2284-d954-435c-a629-55edf67126af
Renz, Susanne
4537317b-9305-464a-af38-5dd50ed70258
Stuart, Beth L.
a6aaccd8-4df5-4406-9c37-499be8a57319
Sach, Tracey
5c09256f-ebed-4d14-853a-181f6c92d6f2
Ridd, Matthew
2f15120c-d5fa-4f5d-bb86-21356e034df7
Thomas, Kim S.
b3bc044e-811d-4dcb-ad36-7c6018c4bb04
Nuttall, Jacqueline
154aec0a-05f2-4379-918e-9c36767fdc4c
Permyakova, Natalia
27793eb1-9b3d-4194-8e80-8d0d4c0798ea
Eminton, Zina
44904d98-97be-4080-9a84-bf5742525f8e
Francis, Nick
9b610883-605c-4fee-871d-defaa86ccf8e
Little, Paul
1bf2d1f7-200c-47a5-ab16-fe5a8756a777
Muller, Ingrid
b532741c-7cd6-4834-b60d-90f9b9b12695
Soulsby, Irene
35236c31-871e-4f3a-a814-3a7365f32316
Thomas, Karen
6d182191-c867-491d-aaca-cb1d92a87074
Griffiths, Gareth
7fd300c0-d279-4ff6-842d-aa1f2b9b864d
Layton, Alison M.
5b851301-28e2-49f6-af30-a1bb7f35baa1

Santer, Miriam, Lawrence, Megan, Pyne, Sarah, Renz, Susanne, Stuart, Beth L., Sach, Tracey, Ridd, Matthew, Thomas, Kim S., Nuttall, Jacqueline, Permyakova, Natalia, Eminton, Zina, Francis, Nick, Little, Paul, Muller, Ingrid, Soulsby, Irene, Thomas, Karen, Griffiths, Gareth and Layton, Alison M. (2024) Clinical and cost-effectiveness of spironolactone in treating persistent facial acne in women: SAFA double-blinded RCT. Health technology assessment (Winchester, England), 28 (56). (doi:10.3310/MYJT6804).

Record type: Article

Abstract

Background: acne is common, can cause significant impact on quality of life and is a frequent reason for long-term antibiotic use. Spironolactone has been prescribed for acne in women for many years, but robust evidence is lacking.

Objective: to evaluate whether spironolactone is clinically effective and cost-effective in treating acne in women.

Design: pragmatic, parallel, double-blind, randomised superiority trial.

Setting: primary and secondary healthcare and community settings (community and social media advertising).

Participants: Women aged 18 years and older with facial acne persisting for at least 6 months, judged to potentially warrant oral antibiotic treatment.

Interventions: Participants were randomised 1 : 1, using an independent web-based procedure, to either 50 mg/day spironolactone or matched placebo until week 6, increasing to 100 mg/day spironolactone or matched placebo until week 24. Participants continued usual topical treatment.

Main outcome measures: primary outcome was the adjusted mean difference in Acne-Specific Quality of Life symptom subscale score at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes included Acne-Specific Quality of Life total and subscales; participant self-assessed improvement; Investigator's Global Assessment; Participant's Global Assessment; satisfaction; adverse effects and cost-effectiveness.

Results: of 1267 women assessed for eligibility, 410 were randomised (201 intervention, 209 control), 342 in the primary analysis (176 intervention, 166 control). Mean age was 29.2 years (standard deviation 7.2) and 7.9% (28/356) were from non-white backgrounds. At baseline, Investigator's Global Assessment classified acne as mild in 46%, moderate in 40% and severe in 13%. At baseline, 82.9% were using topical treatments. Over 95% of participants in both groups tolerated the treatment and increased their dose. Mean baseline Acne-Specific Quality of Life symptom subscale was 13.0 (standard deviation 4.7) across both groups. Mean scores at week 12 were 19.2 (standard deviation 6.1) for spironolactone and 17.8 (standard deviation 5.6) for placebo [difference favouring spironolactone 1.27 (95% confidence interval 0.07 to 2.46) adjusting for baseline variables]. Mean scores at week 24 were 21.2 (standard deviation 5.9) in spironolactone group and 17.4 (standard deviation 5.8) in placebo group [adjusted difference 3.77 (95% confidence interval 2.50 to 5.03) adjusted]. Secondary outcomes also favoured spironolactone at 12 weeks with greater differences at 24 weeks. Participants taking spironolactone were more likely than those taking placebo to report overall acne improvement at 12 weeks {72.2% vs. 67.9% [adjusted odds ratio 1.16 (95% confidence interval 0.70 to 1.91)]} and at 24 weeks {81.9% vs. 63.3% [adjusted odds ratio 2.72 (95% confidence interval 1.50 to 4.93)]}. Investigator's Global Assessment was judged successful at week 12 for 31/201 (18.5%) taking spironolactone and 9/209 (5.6%) taking placebo [adjusted odds ratio 5.18 (95% confidence interval 2.18 to 12.28)]. Satisfaction with treatment improved in 70.6% of participants taking spironolactone compared with 43.1% taking placebo [adjusted odds ratio 3.12 (95% confidence interval 1.80 to 5.41)]. Adverse reactions were similar between groups, but headaches were reported more commonly on spironolactone (20.4% vs. 12.0%). No serious adverse reactions were reported. Taking account for missing data through multiple imputation gave an incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year of £27,879 (adjusted) compared to placebo or £2683 per quality-adjusted life-year compared to oral antibiotics.

Conclusions: spironolactone resulted in better participant-reported and investigator-reported outcomes than placebo, with greater differences at week 24 than week 12.

Trial registration: this trial is registered as ISRCTN12892056 and EudraCT (2018-003630-33).

Text
3046072 - Version of Record
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.
Download (2MB)

More information

Published date: 1 September 2024
Keywords: Acne Vulgaris/drug therapy, Adolescent, Adult, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Double-Blind Method, Female, Humans, Mineralocorticoid Receptor Antagonists/therapeutic use, Quality of Life, Quality-Adjusted Life Years, Spironolactone/therapeutic use, Young Adult

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 495474
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/495474
ISSN: 1366-5278
PURE UUID: 90751e1c-e8cd-4c20-9c4a-793886bff06c
ORCID for Miriam Santer: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0001-7264-5260
ORCID for Tracey Sach: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0002-8098-9220
ORCID for Natalia Permyakova: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0003-3549-3215
ORCID for Nick Francis: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0001-8939-7312
ORCID for Paul Little: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0003-3664-1873
ORCID for Gareth Griffiths: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0002-9579-8021

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 14 Nov 2024 17:42
Last modified: 10 Dec 2024 02:56

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Miriam Santer ORCID iD
Author: Megan Lawrence
Author: Sarah Pyne
Author: Susanne Renz
Author: Beth L. Stuart
Author: Tracey Sach ORCID iD
Author: Matthew Ridd
Author: Kim S. Thomas
Author: Jacqueline Nuttall
Author: Natalia Permyakova ORCID iD
Author: Zina Eminton
Author: Nick Francis ORCID iD
Author: Paul Little ORCID iD
Author: Ingrid Muller
Author: Irene Soulsby
Author: Karen Thomas
Author: Alison M. Layton

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.

×