Cargando…

Systematic review of clinical practice guidelines for acne vulgaris published between January 2017 and July 2021

BACKGROUND: Acne is very common, can cause considerable negative impact on quality of life and there is increasing concern over the use of long courses of oral antibiotics for this condition. OBJECTIVES: (1) To critically appraise reporting in acne guidelines and compare this with previous systemati...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Corcoran, Louise, Muller, Ingrid, Layton, Alison M., Rucinski, Gwennan, Venkatess, Viktoria, Sufraz, Anicka, Dove, Sophie, Lown, Mark, Stuart, Beth, Francis, Nick, Santer, Miriam
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10395621/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37538340
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ski2.240
_version_ 1785083615629017088
author Corcoran, Louise
Muller, Ingrid
Layton, Alison M.
Rucinski, Gwennan
Venkatess, Viktoria
Sufraz, Anicka
Dove, Sophie
Lown, Mark
Stuart, Beth
Francis, Nick
Santer, Miriam
author_facet Corcoran, Louise
Muller, Ingrid
Layton, Alison M.
Rucinski, Gwennan
Venkatess, Viktoria
Sufraz, Anicka
Dove, Sophie
Lown, Mark
Stuart, Beth
Francis, Nick
Santer, Miriam
author_sort Corcoran, Louise
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Acne is very common, can cause considerable negative impact on quality of life and there is increasing concern over the use of long courses of oral antibiotics for this condition. OBJECTIVES: (1) To critically appraise reporting in acne guidelines and compare this with previous systematic review of acne guidelines. (2) Examine acne treatment guidance on pre‐specified acne treatments of interest and compare between acne guidelines. METHODS: Searches for new or updated guidelines were carried out in MEDLINE, Embase, Google Scholar, LILACS from 1 January 2017 to 31 July 2021, supplemented by searching a guideline‐specific depository and checking for updates to guidelines included in previous review. We included guidelines, consensus statements or care protocols on the medical treatment of acne vulgaris in adults and/or children and excluded those that focused on a single intervention or subgroup of acne, regional adaptations of guidelines or guidelines included in previous review. AGREE II checklist was applied to critically appraise reporting of guidelines. Results were synthesised narratively. RESULTS: Of 807 abstracts identified nine guidelines were identified that were eligible for inclusion. All guidelines had AGREE II scores above average in at least one domain and reporting was substantially improved compared to the systematic review of acne carried out 5 years previously. There was consensus between guidelines on the key role of topical treatments as first‐line acne treatment and most recommended continuing topical treatments as maintenance therapy. There was considerable variation between guidelines on classification of severity, indications for commencing oral antibiotics and on maximum duration of oral antibiotics. However, there was consensus on the need for co‐prescription of a non‐antibiotic topical treatment when using oral antibiotics. There were notable differences on recommendations regarding provision of information for patients on how to use topical treatments or how to mitigate against side effects. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial differences in classification of acne severity hampered comparisons between guidelines. Although development and reporting of guidelines has improved over the past 5 years, differences in key recommendations remain, possibly reflecting uncertainties in the underlying evidence base. Differences between guidelines could have substantial implications for prevalence of antibiotic prescribing for acne.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10395621
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-103956212023-08-03 Systematic review of clinical practice guidelines for acne vulgaris published between January 2017 and July 2021 Corcoran, Louise Muller, Ingrid Layton, Alison M. Rucinski, Gwennan Venkatess, Viktoria Sufraz, Anicka Dove, Sophie Lown, Mark Stuart, Beth Francis, Nick Santer, Miriam Skin Health Dis Systematic Reviews BACKGROUND: Acne is very common, can cause considerable negative impact on quality of life and there is increasing concern over the use of long courses of oral antibiotics for this condition. OBJECTIVES: (1) To critically appraise reporting in acne guidelines and compare this with previous systematic review of acne guidelines. (2) Examine acne treatment guidance on pre‐specified acne treatments of interest and compare between acne guidelines. METHODS: Searches for new or updated guidelines were carried out in MEDLINE, Embase, Google Scholar, LILACS from 1 January 2017 to 31 July 2021, supplemented by searching a guideline‐specific depository and checking for updates to guidelines included in previous review. We included guidelines, consensus statements or care protocols on the medical treatment of acne vulgaris in adults and/or children and excluded those that focused on a single intervention or subgroup of acne, regional adaptations of guidelines or guidelines included in previous review. AGREE II checklist was applied to critically appraise reporting of guidelines. Results were synthesised narratively. RESULTS: Of 807 abstracts identified nine guidelines were identified that were eligible for inclusion. All guidelines had AGREE II scores above average in at least one domain and reporting was substantially improved compared to the systematic review of acne carried out 5 years previously. There was consensus between guidelines on the key role of topical treatments as first‐line acne treatment and most recommended continuing topical treatments as maintenance therapy. There was considerable variation between guidelines on classification of severity, indications for commencing oral antibiotics and on maximum duration of oral antibiotics. However, there was consensus on the need for co‐prescription of a non‐antibiotic topical treatment when using oral antibiotics. There were notable differences on recommendations regarding provision of information for patients on how to use topical treatments or how to mitigate against side effects. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial differences in classification of acne severity hampered comparisons between guidelines. Although development and reporting of guidelines has improved over the past 5 years, differences in key recommendations remain, possibly reflecting uncertainties in the underlying evidence base. Differences between guidelines could have substantial implications for prevalence of antibiotic prescribing for acne. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2023-05-23 /pmc/articles/PMC10395621/ /pubmed/37538340 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ski2.240 Text en © 2023 The Authors. Skin Health and Disease published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Association of Dermatologists. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Systematic Reviews
Corcoran, Louise
Muller, Ingrid
Layton, Alison M.
Rucinski, Gwennan
Venkatess, Viktoria
Sufraz, Anicka
Dove, Sophie
Lown, Mark
Stuart, Beth
Francis, Nick
Santer, Miriam
Systematic review of clinical practice guidelines for acne vulgaris published between January 2017 and July 2021
title Systematic review of clinical practice guidelines for acne vulgaris published between January 2017 and July 2021
title_full Systematic review of clinical practice guidelines for acne vulgaris published between January 2017 and July 2021
title_fullStr Systematic review of clinical practice guidelines for acne vulgaris published between January 2017 and July 2021
title_full_unstemmed Systematic review of clinical practice guidelines for acne vulgaris published between January 2017 and July 2021
title_short Systematic review of clinical practice guidelines for acne vulgaris published between January 2017 and July 2021
title_sort systematic review of clinical practice guidelines for acne vulgaris published between january 2017 and july 2021
topic Systematic Reviews
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10395621/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37538340
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ski2.240
work_keys_str_mv AT corcoranlouise systematicreviewofclinicalpracticeguidelinesforacnevulgarispublishedbetweenjanuary2017andjuly2021
AT mulleringrid systematicreviewofclinicalpracticeguidelinesforacnevulgarispublishedbetweenjanuary2017andjuly2021
AT laytonalisonm systematicreviewofclinicalpracticeguidelinesforacnevulgarispublishedbetweenjanuary2017andjuly2021
AT rucinskigwennan systematicreviewofclinicalpracticeguidelinesforacnevulgarispublishedbetweenjanuary2017andjuly2021
AT venkatessviktoria systematicreviewofclinicalpracticeguidelinesforacnevulgarispublishedbetweenjanuary2017andjuly2021
AT sufrazanicka systematicreviewofclinicalpracticeguidelinesforacnevulgarispublishedbetweenjanuary2017andjuly2021
AT dovesophie systematicreviewofclinicalpracticeguidelinesforacnevulgarispublishedbetweenjanuary2017andjuly2021
AT lownmark systematicreviewofclinicalpracticeguidelinesforacnevulgarispublishedbetweenjanuary2017andjuly2021
AT stuartbeth systematicreviewofclinicalpracticeguidelinesforacnevulgarispublishedbetweenjanuary2017andjuly2021
AT francisnick systematicreviewofclinicalpracticeguidelinesforacnevulgarispublishedbetweenjanuary2017andjuly2021
AT santermiriam systematicreviewofclinicalpracticeguidelinesforacnevulgarispublishedbetweenjanuary2017andjuly2021