Efficacy of topical treatments for mild‐to‐moderate acne: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized control trials

Author:

Kakpovbia Efe E.1ORCID,Young Trevor2,Milam Emily C.1,Qian Yingzhi3,Yassin Sallie3,Nicholson Joey4,Hu Jiyuan3,Troxel Andrea B.3,Nagler Arielle R.1

Affiliation:

1. The Ronald O. Perelman Department of Dermatology New York University Grossman School of Medicine New York New York USA

2. Department of Dermatology University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine Philadelphia Pennsylvania USA

3. Department of Population Health New York University Grossman School of Medicine New York New York USA

4. NYU Health Sciences Library NYU Grossman School of Medicine New York New York USA

Abstract

AbstractAcne 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.

Funder

May and Samuel Rudin Family Foundation

Publisher

Wiley

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3