James J. Leyden’s research while affiliated with University of Pennsylvania and other places

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.

Background: Acne fulminans (AF) is a severe variant of inflammatory acne. It typically manifests as an explosive worsening and ulceration of skin lesions, and can be associated with systemic symptoms. However, there is a paucity of evidence-based information and no clear guidelines concerning the classification and treatment of AF. Objective: To better define the spectrum of AF and its variants, devise optimal therapeutic approaches, and identify areas of future research. Methods: A panel of physicians with expertise in severe acne vulgaris was convened after a comprehensive literature review of severe acne variants. Priority topics were reviewed and presented by each panelist at a 5-hour conference. Following review of the audiotape and scribed notes from the conference, surveys were utilized to address points of controversy and to clarify consensus recommendations. Results: Appropriate clinical case presentations and consensus survey questions were utilized to create final recommendations based on both the literature and the expert consensus. Limitations: Limited evidenced-based data and prospective studies in the literature concerning the treatment of AF is available. Conclusion: These guidelines better characterize AF and provide health care practitioners approaches to the classification, treatment, and prevention of AF and its variants.

Importance The notion that systemic isotretinoin taken within 6 to 12 months of cutaneous surgery contributes to abnormal scarring or delayed wound healing is widely taught and practiced; however, it is based on 3 small case series from the mid-1980s. Objective To evaluate the body of literature to provide evidence-based recommendations regarding the safety of procedural interventions performed either concurrently with, or immediately following the cessation of systemic isotretinoin therapy. Evidence Review A panel of national experts in pediatric dermatology, procedural/cosmetic dermatology, plastic surgery, scars, wound healing, acne, and isotretinoin was convened. A systematic PubMed review of English-language articles published from 1982 to 2017 was performed using the following search terms: isotretinoin, 13-cis-retinoic acid, Accutane, retinoids, acitretin, surgery, surgical, laser, ablative laser, nonablative laser, laser hair removal, chemical peel, dermabrasion, wound healing, safety, scarring, hypertrophic scar, and keloid. Evidence was graded, and expert consensus was obtained. Findings Thirty-two relevant publications reported 1485 procedures. There was insufficient evidence to support delaying manual dermabrasion, superficial chemical peels, cutaneous surgery, laser hair removal, and fractional ablative and nonablative laser procedures for patients currently receiving or having recently completed isotretinoin therapy. Based on the available literature, mechanical dermabrasion and fully ablative laser are not recommended in the setting of systemic isotretinoin treatment. Conclusions and Relevance Physicians and patients may have an evidence-based discussion regarding the known risk of cutaneous surgical procedures in the setting of systemic isotretinoin therapy. For some patients and some conditions, an informed decision may lead to earlier and potentially more effective interventions.

Acne-focused dermatology expert groups have consistently recommended that most patients with acne be treated with a combination of topical retinoid and antimicrobial therapy. This is based on clinical data as well as evidence that these drug classes have different and complementary mechanisms of action that target multiple aspects of acne’s complex pathophysiology. Recent evidence-based guidelines for acne, including those from the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) and the European Dermatology Forum (EDF), have agreed that retinoids have an essential role in this widespread disease. The AAD states “retinoids are the core of topical therapy for acne because they are comedolytic, resolve the precursor microcomedone lesion, and are anti-inflammatory;” further, they “allow for maintenance of clearance.” Despite uniform recommendation for use of topical retinoids, a recent study of prescribing practices from 2012 to 2014 indicated that dermatologists prescribed retinoids just 58.8% of the time while non-dermatologists prescribed them for only 32.4% of cases. In this article, we review the reasons supporting retinoids as the mainstay of acne therapy and discuss some of the perceived barriers that may be limiting use of this important drug class. Further, we discuss how and when titrating retinoid concentrations may be utilized in clinical practice. Funding: Galderma International.

Background: Acne is a chronic dermatological disease predominantly afflicting young adults and is often associated with the development of scars. Acne scarring is usually avoidable when acne is managed early and effectively. However, acne patients often fail to seek early treatment. New and innovative tools to raise awareness are needed. Objective: This study presents the development and assessment of a tool aiming to assess the risk of atrophic acne scars. Methods: A systematic literature review of clinical risk factors for acne scars, a Delphi-like survey of dermatological experts in acne and secondary data analysis were conducted in order to produce an evidence-based risk assessment tool. The tool was assessed both with a sample of young adults with and without scars and was assessed via a database cross-validation. Results: A self-administered tool for risk assessment of developing atrophic acne scars in young adults was developed. It is a readily comprehensible and practical tool for population education and for use in medical practices. It comprises four risk factors: worst ever severity of acne, duration of acne, family history of atrophic acne scars and lesion manipulation behaviours. It provides a dichotomous outcome: lower versus higher risk of developing scars, thereby categorising nearly two thirds of the population correctly, with sensitivity of 82% and specificity of 43%. Conclusion: The present tool was developed as a response to current challenges in acne scar prevention. A potential benefit is to encourage those at risk to self-identify and to seek active intervention of their acne. In clinical practice, we expect this tool may help clinicians identify patients at risk of atrophic acne scarring and underscore their requirement for rapid and effective acne treatment. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Although there have been few formal studies, scarring is a known bothersome companion of acne vulgaris. We performed a prospective study of subjects consulting a dermatologist for active acne to assess the frequency of acne scarring. Investigators performed a short questionnaire on all acne patients seen at their office for one consecutive 5-day work week to assess scar frequency. Additionally, the first four subjects with acne scars identified were enrolled for a second phase (scar cohort) of the study during which the investigator collected further medical history and performed a clinical evaluation and the patient completed a self-administered questionnaire about scar perceptions and impact on quality of life. A total of 1,972 subjects were evaluated by 120 investigators. Among these, 43% (n=843) had acne scarring. Subjects with acne scars were significantly more likely to have severe or very severe acne (P<.01); however, 69% of the subjects with acne scars had mild or moderate acne at the time of the study visit. Risk factors correlated with increased likelihood of scarring were acne severity, time between acne onset and first effective treatment, relapsing acne, and male gender. Treatments that can completely resolve acne scars are not yet available - prevention and early treatment remain a primary strategy against scars. It is vital for clinicians who manage individuals with acne to institute effective therapy as early as possible, since treatment delay is a key modifiable risk factor for scarring.

Background: Sunscreens are known to protect from sun damage; however, their effects on the reversal of photodamage have been minimally investigated. Objective: The aim of the prospective study was to evaluate the efficacy of a facial sun protection factor (SPF) 30 formulation for the improvement of photodamage during a 1-year use. Methods: Thirty-two subjects applied a broad spectrum photostable sunscreen (SPF 30) for 52 weeks to the entire face. Assessments were conducted through dermatologist evaluations and subjects' self-assessment at baseline and then at Weeks 12, 24, 36, and 52. Results: Clinical evaluations showed that all photoaging parameters improved significantly from baseline as early as Week 12 and the amelioration continued until Week 52. Skin texture, clarity, and mottled and discrete pigmentation were the most improved parameters by the end of the study (40% to 52% improvement from baseline), with 100% of subjects showing improvement in skin clarity and texture. Conclusion: The daily use of a facial broad-spectrum photostable sunscreen may visibly reverse the signs of existing photodamage, in addition to preventing additional sun damage.