Dataset Information

A comparison of the effectiveness of azelaic and pyruvic acid peels in the treatment of female adult acne: a randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: Chemical peels are widely used as therapeutic agents in dermatology and cosmetology. This study aims to explore the differences in the effectiveness of azelaic and pyruvic acid peels in the treatment of acne vulgaris. Eligibility criteria for participants were: female gender, 18-25 years of age, no dermatological treatment within the last 12 months and mild to moderate papulopustular acne. We treated 120 young women (with a mean age of 22 years old) with six peeling sessions at 2-week intervals. In the parallel clinical study design, one randomized group (n?=?60, 50%) was treated using azelaic acid (AA), whereas the second group participated in pyruvic acid (PA) sessions. We evaluated the patients clinically twice (before and after treatment), using the Scale of Hellegren-Vincent Severity Symptoms to assess the acne diagnosis, and the Nati Analyzer to estimate the skin properties (oily skin, desquamation, porosity, and moisture). The clinical evaluation of the patients demonstrated a significant reduction of acne severity symptoms in both the AA and PA groups, after the peeling sessions. An effect was also found in terms of decreasing desquamation and the oiliness of the skin. PA showed a more significant reduction of greasy skin than AA. In conclusion, after the six peeling sessions using AA and PA, all patients showed better skin parameters in term of reduced oiliness and desquamation. Both AA and PA peelings are a safe and efficient treatment for mild acne, however, during the selection of one of the two acids, side effects, skin properties, and patients' preferences should be taken into account. This study was registered in the ISRCTN registry (registration number ISRCTN79716614, 17/01/2020).

SUBMITTER: Chilicka K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7387545 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A comparison of the effectiveness of azelaic and pyruvic acid peels in the treatment of female adult acne: a randomized controlled trial.

Chilicka Karolina K Rogowska Aleksandra M AM Szyguła Renata R Dzieńdziora-Urbińska Iwona I Taradaj Jakub J

Scientific reports 20200728 1

Chemical peels are widely used as therapeutic agents in dermatology and cosmetology. This study aims to explore the differences in the effectiveness of azelaic and pyruvic acid peels in the treatment of acne vulgaris. Eligibility criteria for participants were: female gender, 18-25 years of age, no dermatological treatment within the last 12 months and mild to moderate papulopustular acne. We treated 120 young women (with a mean age of 22 years old) with six peeling sessions at 2-week intervals. ...[more]

PMID: 32724156

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveThis study aims to estimate the cost-effectiveness of oral spironolactone plus routine topical treatment compared with routine topical treatment alone for persistent acne in adult women from a British NHS perspective over 24 weeks.DesignEconomic evaluation undertaken alongside a pragmatic, parallel, double-blind, randomised trial.SettingPrimary and secondary healthcare, community and social media advertising.ParticipantsWomen ≥18 years with persistent facial acne judged to warrant oral antibiotic treatment.InterventionsParticipants were randomised 1:1 to 50 mg/day spironolactone (increasing to 100 mg/day after 6 weeks) or matched placebo until week 24. Participants in both groups could continue topical treatment.Main outcome measuresCost-utility analysis assessed incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) using the EQ-5D-5L. Cost-effectiveness analysis estimated incremental cost per unit change on the Acne-QoL symptom subscale. Adjusted analysis included randomisation stratification variables (centre, baseline severity (investigator's global assessment, IGA <3 vs ≥3)) and baseline variables (Acne-QoL symptom subscale score, resource use costs, EQ-5D score and use of topical treatments).ResultsSpironolactone did not appear cost-effective in the complete case analysis (n=126 spironolactone, n=109 control), compared with no active systemic treatment (adjusted incremental cost per QALY £67 191; unadjusted £34 770). Incremental cost per QALY was £27 879 (adjusted), just below the upper National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's threshold value of £30 000, where multiple imputation took account of missing data. Incremental cost per QALY for other sensitivity analyses varied around the base-case, highlighting the degree of uncertainty. The adjusted incremental cost per point change on the Acne-QoL symptom subscale for spironolactone compared with no active systemic treatment was £38.21 (complete case analysis).ConclusionsThe results demonstrate a high level of uncertainty, particularly with respect to estimates of incremental QALYs. Compared with no active systemic treatment, spironolactone was estimated to be marginally cost-effective where multiple imputation was performed but was not cost-effective in complete case analysis.Trial registration numberISRCTN registry (ISRCTN12892056).

Project description:OBJECTIVE:We evaluated current evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) regarding the effectiveness of chemical peeling for treating acne vulgaris. METHODS:Standard Cochrane methodological procedures were used. We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and EMBASE via OvidSP through April 2017. Reviewers independently assessed eligibility, risk of bias and extracted data. RESULTS:Twelve RCTs (387 participants) were included. Effectiveness was not significantly different: trichloroacetic acid versus salicylic acid (SA) (percentage of total improvement: risk ratio (RR) 0.89; 95% CI 0.73 to 1.10), glycolic acid (GA) versus amino fruit acid (the reduction of inflammatory lesions: mean difference (MD), 0.20; 95%?CI -3.03 to 3.43), SA versus pyruvic acid (excellent or good improvement: RR 1.11; 95%?CI 0.73 to 1.69), GA versus SA (good or fair improvement: RR 1.00; 95%?CI 0.85 to 1.18), GA versus Jessner's solution (JS) (self-reported improvements: RR 1.00; 95%?CI 0.44 to 2.26), and lipohydroxy acid versus SA (reduction of non-inflammatory lesions: 55.6%vs48.5%, p=0.878). Combined SA and mandelic acid peeling was superior to GA peeling (percentage of improvement in total acne score: 85.3%vs68.5%, p<0.001). GA peeling was superior to placebo (excellent or good improvement: RR 2.30; 95%?CI 1.40 to 3.77). SA peeling may be superior to JS peeling for comedones (reduction of comedones: 53.4%vs26.3%, p=0.001) but less effective than phototherapy for pustules (number of pustules: MD -7.00; 95%?CI -10.84 to -3.16). LIMITATIONS:The methodological quality of the included RCTs was very low to moderate. Meta-analysis was not possible due to the significant clinical heterogeneity across studies. CONCLUSION:Commonly used chemical peels appear to be similarly effective for mild-to-moderate acne vulgaris and well tolerated. However, based on current limited evidence, a robust conclusion cannot be drawn regarding any definitive superiority or equality among the currently used chemical peels. Well-designed RCTs are needed to identify optimal regimens.

Project description:IntroductionAcne is one of the most common inflammatory skin diseases worldwide and can have significant psychosocial impact and cause permanent scarring. Spironolactone, a potassium-sparing diuretic, has antiandrogenic properties, potentially reducing sebum production and hyperkeratinisation in acne-prone follicles. Dermatologists have prescribed spironolactone for acne in women for over 30 years, but robust clinical study data are lacking. This study seeks to evaluate whether spironolactone is clinically effective and cost-effective in treating acne in women.Methods and analysisWomen (≥18 years) with persistent facial acne requiring systemic therapy are randomised to receive one tablet per day of 50 mg spironolactone or a matched placebo until week 6, increasing to up to two tablets per day (total of 100 mg spironolactone or matched placebo) until week 24, along with usual topical therapy if desired. Study treatment stops at week 24; participants are informed of their treatment allocation and enter an unblinded observational follow-up period for up to 6 months (up to week 52 after baseline). Primary outcome is the Acne-specific Quality of Life (Acne-QoL) symptom subscale score at week 12. Secondary outcomes include Acne-QoL total and subscales; participant acne self-assessment recorded on a 6-point Likert scale at 6, 12, 24 weeks and up to 52 weeks; Investigator's Global Assessment at weeks 6 and 12; cost and cost effectiveness are assessed over 24 weeks. Aiming to detect a group difference of 2 points on the Acne-QoL symptom subscale (SD 5.8, effect size 0.35), allowing for 20% loss to follow-up, gives a sample size of 398 participants.Ethics and disseminationThis protocol was approved by Wales Research Ethics Committee (18/WA/0420). Follow-up to be completed in early 2022. Findings will be disseminated to participants, peer-reviewed journals, networks and patient groups, on social media, on the study website and the Southampton Clinical Trials Unit website to maximise impact.Trial registration numberISRCTN12892056;Pre-results.

Dataset Information

A comparison of the effectiveness of azelaic and pyruvic acid peels in the treatment of female adult acne: a randomized controlled trial.

Publications

A comparison of the effectiveness of azelaic and pyruvic acid peels in the treatment of female adult acne: a randomized controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets