Evaluation of Ultrasound Changes With the Use of Microneedling Versus Fractional CO2 Laser in Atrophic Acne Scars.

INTRODUCTION: Atrophic acne scarring, a common sequela of acne, can be treated by different interventions, including microneedling and laser resurfacing. OBJECTIVES: We sought to evaluate the comparative efficacy of microneedling versus fractional CO2 laser in treating atrophic acne facial scars using imaging with high and ultra-high frequency ultrasound. METHODS: Participants received 2 sessions, separated by 1 month, of microneedling on the left side of the face and fractional CO2 laser on the right. Color Doppler ultrasound evaluations (24 and 70 MHz) were conducted at baseline and 3 months after treatment. Each patient completed questionnaires on satisfaction, pain, and adverse effects. RESULTS: Nine subjects were enrolled. The frequency order of scar types was boxcar, ice-pick, and rolling. At 3 months, using the acne scar clinical evaluation scale, a decrease in scar scores of both methods was observed for total scars (P = 0.0005), ice-pick scars (P = 0.0128), and rolling scars (P = 0.0007). Twenty-two scars analyzed by ultrasound demonstrated a trend to decrease in size; however, no significant changes were observed for either microneedling or CO2 laser treatments. Moreover, there were no significant differences between these methods. Both treatments were rated as good or very good by patient assessments. There was a low frequency of pain and hyperpigmentation reported with both modalities, albeit somewhat higher with microneedling. CONCLUSIONS: Both microneedling and CO2 laser improved atrophic acne scars. Ultrasound did not show significant differences between these modalities.

Benefits of the Dermocosmetic Mineral 89 Probiotic Fractions Adjunct to Topical Retinoids for Anti-Aging Benefits.

Purpose: Tretinoin is a topical gold standard for photoaging treatment. However, patient adherence can be impaired by local tolerability in the first 1-2 weeks of treatment. Mineral 89 Probiotic Fractions® (M89PF) containing Vichy volcanic mineralizing water®, probiotic fractions, hyaluronic acid, niacinamide and tocopherol was developed to fulfill the need for adjunctive products that can reinforce skin barrier and manage retinoid induced irritation. Patients and Methods: The study included 38 women, aged 44-60 years, phototype II-VI, applying 0.025% tretinoin gel once nightly for 84 days. For 28 days, one hemi face was treated with M89PF and sunscreen SPF 50+ while other hemi face received sunscreen only. Then, M89PF application was changed to full face. Evaluations were performed at days 0, 7, 28 and 84. Erythema, dryness, fine lines, skin tone, radiance and pore appearance were assessed by a dermatologist. Tolerability was evaluated through self-assessment questionnaire. Skin hydration levels, inflammatory and oxidative stress biomarkers were analyzed by immunological assay: Interleukin(IL)-8, IL1-alpha, IL1-Receptor Antagonist (IL-1Ra), Prostaglandin E2 (PGE2), Catalase and Superoxide Dismutase (SOD). Results: Hemiface analysis showed that erythema, fine lines, skin tone, radiance, pore appearance, hydration, tightness, dryness, burning, itching and stinging sensations were improved (p<0.05) on the M89PF side. At full face analysis on D84, erythema, fine lines, skin tone, radiance and pore appearance were improved compared to D0 (p<0.001). Tightness, dryness, burning, itching and stinging were reduced when compared to D7 (p<0.05). Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) and Skindex 16 showed improvement in quality of life (p<0.05). IL-1RA increased at D28 (p=0.003) and PGE2 decreased at D28 and D84 compared to D0 (p<0.01). Conclusion: M89PF reduced retinoid induced irritation with a good tolerability profile and, used as an adjunct to topical tretinoin, significantly improved skin hydration, erythema, fine lines, skin tone, radiance and pore appearance.

Pilot study for the evaluation and adaptation of a Four Item-Acne-Scar Risk Assessment Tool (4-ASRAT): a resource to estimate the risk of acne-induced scars.

Background: Acne-induced scarring is associated with a similar burden as acne, i.e. diminished quality of life, and may be avoided if patients receive appropriate and timely acne treatment. In 2017, a four item-Acne-Scar Risk Assessment Tool (4-ASRAT) was designed by Tan et al. to categorise patients with acne into lower-risk or higher-risk for acne scarring. Its applicability outside the initial study population (France, Brazil and United States) remains to be determined.  Methods: A study protocol was developed to create a systematic approach for validating and adapting 4-ASRAT to different populations, Ecuador in this case. The protocol was reviewed by 11 local and international dermatologists and pilot-tested in an Ecuadorian population using a sample of 10 participants who currently had or had had acne. Feedback from the pilot study was used to improve the study protocol. The results of the pilot study are included here, and the final study protocol is available as extended data.  Results: The protocol proved to be applicable. Images taken of participants were a valuable resource for dermatological evaluation about the presence or absence of acne scars. Tangential light is necessary for this evaluation. Although dermatological assessments varied, we concluded that assessment by three local dermatologists for each participant was adequate for reaching a consensus on the presence or absence of acne scars.   Conclusions: Considering the morbidity related to acne and acne scars, tools designed as prevention that alert patients about risk of developing scarring are necessary. The proposed protocol shows a feasible way of validating and adapting 4-ASRAT to different populations.

A North American study of adapalene-benzoyl peroxide combination gel in the treatment of acne.

A fixed-dose combination gel with adapalene 0.1% and benzoyl peroxide (BPO) 2.5% recently has been developed for the treatment of acne vulgaris. In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, active- and vehicle-controlled study conducted at 60 centers in the United States, Puerto Rico, and Canada, we assessed the efficacy and safety of adapalene-BPO combination gel in comparison with adapalene and BPO monotherapies as well as the gel vehicle. Participants with moderate facial acne vulgaris (rated 3 on the 5-point investigator global assessment of acne severity scale) were recruited and randomized to receive once-daily treatment with adapalene-BPO combination gel, adapalene monotherapy, BPO monotherapy, or gel vehicle for 12 weeks. They were assessed for success rate (the percentage of participants with investigator global assessment of acne severity rated clear or almost clear) and percentage change in inflammatory lesion (IL), noninflammatory lesion (NIL), and total lesion counts. Of the 1668 participants enrolled, 1429 (85.7%) completed the study. At study end point, adapalene-BPO combination gel showed a significantly higher success rate (P < or = .006) and a greater percentage reduction in all acne lesion counts (P < or = .017) compared with the other treatment groups. A significant early treatment effect of adapalene-BPO combination gel at week 1 compared with adapalene monotherapy and vehicle also was observed for all lesion count reductions (P<.001). The safety of adapalene-BPO combination gel was comparable with adapalene and BPO monotherapies and vehicle. In a large clinical trial, the adapalene-BPO fixed-dose combination gel has shown superiority in efficacy compared with adapalene and BPO monotherapies and vehicle, with an early onset of efficacy and a good safety profile.