Clascoterone for treatment of acne.

Clascoterone is a novel topical antiandrogen medication approved for the treatment of acne. Conventional oral antiandrogen treatments targeting acne such as combined oral contraceptives and spironolactone exert systemic hormonal effects which commonly preclude their usage in male patients while hampering their application in certain female patients. In contrast, clascoterone is a first-in-class antiandrogen proven to be both safe and effective for female and male patients above the age of 12. Outside of occasional localized skin irritation, clascoterone is usually well tolerated, however, some adolescents in a phase II clinical trial experienced biochemical evidence of HPA suppression, which resolved after discontinuing treatment. In this review, we provide an overview of clascoterone including its preclinical pharmacology, pharmacokinetics and metabolism, safety, clinical studies and indications.

Janus Kinase Inhibitors and Adverse Events of Acne: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Importance: Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors are increasingly used across a range of dermatologic conditions. Adverse events of acne have been noted in some studies in clinical practice, but the scope of this outcome across JAK inhibitors has not been established. Objective: To systematically analyze all published phase 2 and 3 placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of JAK inhibitors for the risk of acne as an adverse effect of these medications. Data Sources: Comprehensive search of Ovid MEDLINE and PubMed databases through January 31, 2023. Study Selection: Inclusion criteria were phase 2 and 3 placebo-controlled RCTs of JAK inhibitors published in English with reported adverse events of acne. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two reviewers independently reviewed and extracted information from all included studies. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome of interest was the incidence of acne following JAK inhibitor use. A meta-analysis was conducted using random-effects models. Results: A total of 25 unique studies (10 839 unique participants; 54% male and 46% female) were included in the final analysis. The pooled odds ratio (OR) was calculated to be 3.83 (95% CI, 2.76-5.32) with increased ORs for abrocitinib (13.47 [95% CI, 3.25-55.91]), baricitinib (4.96 [95% CI, 2.52-9.78]), upadacitinib (4.79 [95% CI, 3.61-6.37]), deucravacitinib (2.64 [95% CI, 1.44-4.86]), and deuruxolitinib (3.30 [95% CI, 1.22-8.93]). Estimated ORs were higher across studies investigating the use of JAK inhibitors for the management of dermatologic compared with nondermatologic conditions (4.67 [95% CI, 3.10-7.05]) as well as for JAK1-specific inhibitors (4.69 [95% CI, 3.56-6.18]), combined JAK1 and JAK2 inhibitors (3.43 [95% CI, 2.14-5.49]), and tyrosine kinase 2 inhibitors (2.64 [95% CI, 1.44-4.86]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, JAK inhibitor use was associated with an elevated odds of acne. Patients should be properly counseled on this potential adverse effect of these medications before treatment initiation. Future studies are needed to further elucidate the pathophysiology of this association.

Skin phototype of participants in laser and light treatments of cosmetic dermatologic conditions: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: In cosmetic dermatology, lasers and lights treat a variety of hair and skin conditions, including some that disproportionately affect people of color. AIMS: Our systematic review aims to understand the representation of participants with skin phototypes 4-6 in cosmetic dermatologic trials studying laser and light devices. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted using search terms "laser," "light," and multiple laser and light subtypes in the PubMed and Web of Science databases. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between January 1, 2010 and October 14, 2021 that studied laser or light devices for cosmetic dermatologic conditions were eligible for inclusion. RESULTS: Our systematic review included 461 RCTs representing 14 763 participants. Of 345 studies that reported skin phototype, 81.7% (n = 282) included participants of skin phototypes 4-6, but only 27.5% (n = 95) included participants of skin phototypes 5 or 6. This trend of excluding darker skin phototypes persisted when results were stratified by condition, laser of study, study location, journal type, and funding source. CONCLUSIONS: Trials studying lasers and lights for the treatment of cosmetic dermatologic conditions need better representation of skin phototypes 5 and 6.