• Login
    View Item 
    •   DSpace Home
    • AECC University College Research
    • AECC University College Research Collection
    • View Item
    •   DSpace Home
    • AECC University College Research
    • AECC University College Research Collection
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Topical preparations for the treatment of mild to moderate acne vulgaris: systematic review and network meta-analysis

    Thumbnail
    Abstract
    Background: Acne is very common and can have substantial impact on wellbeing. Guidelines suggest first line management with topical treatments but there is little evidence regarding which 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 WHO Trials Registry were searched until June 2020 for randomised 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 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 with CINeMA. Results: A total of 81 papers were included, reporting 40 trials including 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% v 26%, odds ratio (OR) 1.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.45‐ 2.56; moderate confidence) for improving self‐reported acne. The combinations of BPO with adapalene (54% v 35%, OR 1.88, 1.32‐2.67; low confidence) or with clindamycin (49% v 35%; OR 1.54, 1.14‐2.08; low confidence) were ranked more effective than BPO alone. Participants withdrawing from the trial was reported in 35 trials. Numbers withdrawing due to adverse events were 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+BPO may be the most effective but with a slightly higher incidence of withdrawal than monotherapy. Inconsistent reporting of trial results precluded firmer conclusions.
    URI
    https://aecc.archive.knowledgearc.net/handle/123456789/142
    Collections
    • AECC University College Research Collection
    Date
    2021
    Author
    Stuart, B
    Maund, E
    Wilcox, C
    Sridharan, K
    Sivaramakrishnan, G
    Regas, C
    Newell, Dave
    Soulsby, I
    Tang, K F
    Finlay, A Y
    Bucher, H C
    Little, P
    Layton, A M
    Santer, M
    Show full item record
    Article Details (54.55Kb)

     ©  AECC University College 2018. All Rights Reserved

    Contact Us
    Powered by KnowledgeArc

    Login to Moodle | Library websites privacy notice | AECC University College privacy policy and cookies

     

    Browse

    All of DSpaceCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjects

    My Account

    Login

     ©  AECC University College 2018. All Rights Reserved

    Contact Us
    Powered by KnowledgeArc

    Login to Moodle | Library websites privacy notice | AECC University College privacy policy and cookies