Cargando…

Chemical peels for acne vulgaris: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials

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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chen, Xiaomei, Wang, Sheng, Yang, Ming, Li, Li
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5931279/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29705755
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019607
_version_ 1783319620224024576
author Chen, Xiaomei
Wang, Sheng
Yang, Ming
Li, Li
author_facet Chen, Xiaomei
Wang, Sheng
Yang, Ming
Li, Li
author_sort Chen, Xiaomei
collection PubMed
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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5931279
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-59312792018-05-04 Chemical peels for acne vulgaris: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials Chen, Xiaomei Wang, Sheng Yang, Ming Li, Li BMJ Open Dermatology 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. BMJ Publishing Group 2018-04-28 /pmc/articles/PMC5931279/ /pubmed/29705755 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019607 Text en © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted. This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
spellingShingle Dermatology
Chen, Xiaomei
Wang, Sheng
Yang, Ming
Li, Li
Chemical peels for acne vulgaris: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials
title Chemical peels for acne vulgaris: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials
title_full Chemical peels for acne vulgaris: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials
title_fullStr Chemical peels for acne vulgaris: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials
title_full_unstemmed Chemical peels for acne vulgaris: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials
title_short Chemical peels for acne vulgaris: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials
title_sort chemical peels for acne vulgaris: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials
topic Dermatology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5931279/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29705755
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019607
work_keys_str_mv AT chenxiaomei chemicalpeelsforacnevulgarisasystematicreviewofrandomisedcontrolledtrials
AT wangsheng chemicalpeelsforacnevulgarisasystematicreviewofrandomisedcontrolledtrials
AT yangming chemicalpeelsforacnevulgarisasystematicreviewofrandomisedcontrolledtrials
AT lili chemicalpeelsforacnevulgarisasystematicreviewofrandomisedcontrolledtrials