Chen Xiaomei, Wang Sheng, Yang Ming, Li Li
Department of Dermatology & Venereology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
The Center of Gerontology and Geriatrics, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
BMJ Open. 2018 Apr 28;8(4):e019607. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019607.
We evaluated current evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) regarding the effectiveness of chemical peeling for treating acne vulgaris.
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.
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).
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.
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.
我们评估了随机对照试验(RCT)中有关化学剥脱术治疗寻常痤疮有效性的现有证据。
采用标准的Cochrane方法学程序。我们通过OvidSP检索了截至2017年4月的MEDLINE、Cochrane对照试验中央注册库和EMBASE。评审员独立评估纳入标准、偏倚风险并提取数据。
纳入了12项RCT(387名参与者)。有效性无显著差异:三氯乙酸与水杨酸(SA)(总体改善百分比:风险比(RR)0.89;95%CI 0.73至1.10),乙醇酸(GA)与氨基果酸(炎症性皮损减少:平均差(MD)0.20;95%CI -3.03至3.43),SA与丙酮酸(优秀或良好改善:RR 1.11;95%CI 0.73至1.69),GA与SA(良好或中等改善:RR 1.00;95%CI 0.85至1.18),GA与杰氏溶液(JS)(自我报告的改善:RR 1.00;95%CI 0.44至2.26),以及脂羟基酸与SA(非炎症性皮损减少:55.6%对48.5%,p = 0.878)。SA和扁桃酸联合剥脱术优于GA剥脱术(痤疮总分改善百分比:85.3%对68.5%,p<0.001)。GA剥脱术优于安慰剂(优秀或良好改善:RR 2.30;95%CI 1.40至3.77)。SA剥脱术对于粉刺可能优于JS剥脱术(粉刺减少:53.4%对26.3%,p = 0.001),但对于脓疱比光疗效果差(脓疱数量:MD -7.00;95%CI -10.84至 -3.16)。
纳入的RCT的方法学质量非常低至中等。由于各研究之间存在显著的临床异质性,无法进行荟萃分析。
常用的化学剥脱术对于轻至中度寻常痤疮似乎同样有效且耐受性良好。然而,基于目前有限的证据,无法就目前使用的化学剥脱术之间的任何明确优越性或等效性得出有力结论。需要设计良好的RCT来确定最佳方案。