Practical management of acne for clinicians: An international consensus from the Global Alliance to Improve Outcomes in Acne.

Scientific advances are continually improving the knowledge of acne and contributing to the refinement of treatment options; it is important for clinicians to regularly update their practice patterns to reflect current standards. The Global Alliance to Improve Outcomes in Acne is an international group of dermatologists with an interest in acne research and education that has been meeting regularly since 2001. As a group, we have continuously evaluated the literature on acne. This supplement focuses on providing relevant clinical guidance to health care practitioners managing patients with acne, with an emphasis on areas where the evidence base may be sparse or need interpretation for daily practice.

New Atrophic Acne Scar Classification: Reliability of Assessments Based on Size, Shape, and Number.

BACKGROUND: Post-acne atrophic scarring is a major concern for which standardized outcome measures are needed. Traditionally, this type of scar has been classified based on shape; but survey of practicing dermatologists has shown that atrophic scar morphology has not been well enough defined to allow good agreement in clinical classification. Reliance on clinical assessment is still needed at the current time, since objective tools are not yet available in routine practice.
OBJECTIVES: Evaluate classification for atrophic acne scars by shape, size, and facial location and establish reliability in assessments.
METHODS: We conducted a non-interventional study with dermatologists performing live clinical assessments of atrophic acne scars. To objectively compare identification of lesions, individual lesions were marked on a high-resolution photo of the patient that was displayed on a computer during the clinical evaluation. The Jacob clinical classification system was used to define three primary shapes of scars 1) icepick, 2) boxcar, and 3) rolling. To determine agreement for classification by size, independent technicians assessed the investigators' markings on digital images. Identical localization of scars was denoted if the maximal distance between their centers was ≤ 60 pixels (approximately 3 mm). Raters assessed scars on the same patients twice (morning/afternoon). Aggregate models of rater assessments were created and analyzed for agreement.
RESULTS: Raters counted a mean scar count per subject ranging from 15.75 to 40.25 scars. Approximately 50% of scars were identified by all raters and ~75% of scars were identified by at least 2 of 3 raters (weak agreement, Kappa pairwise agreement 0.30). Agreement between consecutive counts was moderate, with Kappa index ranging from 0.26 to 0.47 (after exclusion of one outlier investigator who had significantly higher counts than all others). Shape classifications of icepick, boxcar, and rolling differed significantly between raters and even for same raters at consecutive sessions (P<.001 and P=0.4, respectively). Analysis showed only 65% of scars were identical in both sessions. We also found that there is a threshold of detection in terms of size, with poor agreement among investigators for very small scars (<2 mm). The repeatability of identification of scars ≥ 2.0 mm was acceptable, and we found that increasing scar size was positively correlated with agreement. Reliability was improved when only scars >2 mm were included. For smaller scars (<2 mm), inter-rater reliability was poor.
CONCLUSIONS: While intuitively it makes sense that describing scar morphology could guide treatment, we have shown that shape-based evaluations are subjective and do not readily yield strong agreement. Until there is a more objective way to evaluate morphology that is readily available to practicing clinicians, we propose that size should be considered a primary characteristic for scar classification systems. We further suggest classification of <2 mm, 2-4 mm, and >4 mm based on how the size would likely affect diagnostic and therapeutic choices. Finally, we recommend that scars <2 mm not be included in a clinical classification but should be evaluated by an objective method that may be refined in the future.

J Drugs Dermatol. 2016;15(6):693-702.

New Patient-Oriented Tools for Assessing Atrophic Acne Scarring.

INTRODUCTION: Scarring on visible areas such as the face is associated with negative psychological impact. Many patients with acne have clinically relevant scarring for which they seek treatment, implying that there is an impact on their lives. Currently there are no validated tools to assess the burden of atrophic acne scarring from the patient's perspective or to assess treatment benefit. METHODS: Two patient-reported outcome measures, the self-assessment of clinical acne-related scars (SCARS) and the facial acne scar quality of life (FASQoL) tools, both specific to facial atrophic acne scarring, were developed according to Food and Drug Administration guidance methodology. Patient interviews were conducted first to elicit patient-important concepts about scarring, then to validate patients' understanding of wording in the tools. These tools focus on symptoms (SCARS) and psychological and social well-being (FASQoL) and were designed to be suitable for self-completion and to be rapidly completed (2-5 min) within a clinical research setting. RESULTS: Concept elicitation interviews were conducted with 30 subjects and cognitive interviews with 20 subjects. With acne scarring, important concepts for patients included size, surface area affected, counts, and depth. The SCARS and FASQoL tools were shown to address relevant concepts that were easily understood by patients. CONCLUSION: Two patient-reported measures, SCARS and FASQoL, have been developed to help clinicians assess the severity and impact of acne scars. Responsivity of these instruments to treatment will require further evaluation. FUNDING: Galderma R&D, Sophia Antipolis, France.

New insights into the management of acne: an update from the Global Alliance to Improve Outcomes in Acne group.

The Global Alliance to Improve Outcomes in Acne published recommendations for the management of acne as a supplement to the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology in 2003. The recommendations incorporated evidence-based strategies when possible and the collective clinical experience of the group when evidence was lacking. This update reviews new information about acne pathophysiology and treatment-such as lasers and light therapy-and relevant topics where published data were sparse in 2003 but are now available including combination therapy, revision of acne scarring, and maintenance therapy. The update also includes a new way of looking at acne as a chronic disease, a discussion of the changing role of antibiotics in acne management as a result of concerns about microbial resistance, and factors that affect adherence to acne treatments. Summary statements and recommendations are provided throughout the update along with an indication of the level of evidence that currently supports each finding. As in the original supplement, the authors have based recommendations on published evidence as much as possible.