Topical Antibiotic Monotherapy Only Provides Mild Benefit for Patients with Acne Vulgaris: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Clinical Drug Investigation Pub Date : 2026-07-01 Epub Date: 2026-05-09 DOI:10.1007/s40261-026-01553-z
Meng Lyu, Wenxin Fan, Haihui Yang, Xufei Luo, Gang Wang, Guannan Zhu, Christos C Zouboulis
{"title":"Topical Antibiotic Monotherapy Only Provides Mild Benefit for Patients with Acne Vulgaris: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.","authors":"Meng Lyu, Wenxin Fan, Haihui Yang, Xufei Luo, Gang Wang, Guannan Zhu, Christos C Zouboulis","doi":"10.1007/s40261-026-01553-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>Topical antibiotics have long been used in acne management owing to their antibacterial and anti-inflammatory properties. However, the comparative efficacy and safety profiles of antibiotic monotherapy have not been systematically synthesized. The network meta-analysis aims to determine the relative efficacy and safety of topical antibiotics for acne vulgaris.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov from 1 January, 2000, to 22 August, 2023, with an updated search on 21 October, 2025. Randomized controlled trials comparing topical antibiotic monotherapy with placebo or other topical antibiotics in patients with acne vulgaris were included. Efficacy outcomes include mean absolute reduction in inflammatory lesions, non-inflammatory lesions, and total lesions, and treatment success (defined as a 2-grade reduction in the Investigator's Global Assessment). The primary safety outcome was discontinuation because of adverse events.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>This review included 32 studies comprising 34 randomized controlled trials with 22,645 patients. Compared with placebo, only dapsone 5% [- 29.8 (95% confidence interval [CI] - 55.4 to - 4.1)] and erythromycin 2% [- 24.0 (95% CI - 45.7 to - 2.1)] significantly reduced inflammatory lesion counts. For non-inflammatory lesion counts, azithromycin 2% [- 58.9 (95% CI - 85.5 to - 31.7)], erythromycin 2% [- 42.0 (95% CI - 69.8 to - 14.0)], metronidazole 2% [- 14.6 (95% CI - 20.8 to - 8.6)], and minocycline 4% [- 5.1 (95% CI - 9.2 to - 2.2)] showed a significant reduction. However, no treatment showed a significant improvement in total lesion counts compared to placebo. Regarding Investigator's Global Assessment improvement, analysis was limited to three drugs because of inconsistent reporting; results showed that clindamycin 1% [1.6 (95% CI 1.1 to 2.3)], GDC 268 lotion (clindamycin phosphate topical lotion 1%) [2.2 (95% CI 1.1 to 4.4)], and minocycline 4% [2.2 (95% CI 1.5 to 3.5)] were superior to placebo. Data on discontinuation because of adverse events showed significant heterogeneity, which needs cautious interpretation.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Current evidence indicates that topical antibiotic monotherapies yield inconsistent efficacy and uncertain safety across different lesion types. Given the lack of robust evidence for consistent superiority over placebo and the global concern for antibiotic resistance, routine antibiotics monotherapy should be limited in the management of acne vulgaris.</p><p><strong>Clinical trial registration: </strong>PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022297060.</p>","PeriodicalId":10402,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Drug Investigation","volume":" ","pages":"691-700"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Drug Investigation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40261-026-01553-z","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/5/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and objectives: Topical antibiotics have long been used in acne management owing to their antibacterial and anti-inflammatory properties. However, the comparative efficacy and safety profiles of antibiotic monotherapy have not been systematically synthesized. The network meta-analysis aims to determine the relative efficacy and safety of topical antibiotics for acne vulgaris.

Methods: We searched MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov from 1 January, 2000, to 22 August, 2023, with an updated search on 21 October, 2025. Randomized controlled trials comparing topical antibiotic monotherapy with placebo or other topical antibiotics in patients with acne vulgaris were included. Efficacy outcomes include mean absolute reduction in inflammatory lesions, non-inflammatory lesions, and total lesions, and treatment success (defined as a 2-grade reduction in the Investigator's Global Assessment). The primary safety outcome was discontinuation because of adverse events.

Results: This review included 32 studies comprising 34 randomized controlled trials with 22,645 patients. Compared with placebo, only dapsone 5% [- 29.8 (95% confidence interval [CI] - 55.4 to - 4.1)] and erythromycin 2% [- 24.0 (95% CI - 45.7 to - 2.1)] significantly reduced inflammatory lesion counts. For non-inflammatory lesion counts, azithromycin 2% [- 58.9 (95% CI - 85.5 to - 31.7)], erythromycin 2% [- 42.0 (95% CI - 69.8 to - 14.0)], metronidazole 2% [- 14.6 (95% CI - 20.8 to - 8.6)], and minocycline 4% [- 5.1 (95% CI - 9.2 to - 2.2)] showed a significant reduction. However, no treatment showed a significant improvement in total lesion counts compared to placebo. Regarding Investigator's Global Assessment improvement, analysis was limited to three drugs because of inconsistent reporting; results showed that clindamycin 1% [1.6 (95% CI 1.1 to 2.3)], GDC 268 lotion (clindamycin phosphate topical lotion 1%) [2.2 (95% CI 1.1 to 4.4)], and minocycline 4% [2.2 (95% CI 1.5 to 3.5)] were superior to placebo. Data on discontinuation because of adverse events showed significant heterogeneity, which needs cautious interpretation.

Conclusions: Current evidence indicates that topical antibiotic monotherapies yield inconsistent efficacy and uncertain safety across different lesion types. Given the lack of robust evidence for consistent superiority over placebo and the global concern for antibiotic resistance, routine antibiotics monotherapy should be limited in the management of acne vulgaris.

Clinical trial registration: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022297060.

局部抗生素单药治疗仅对寻常痤疮患者有轻微益处:一项系统综述和网络荟萃分析。
背景与目的:外用抗生素因其抗菌和抗炎的特性而长期用于痤疮治疗。然而,抗生素单一疗法的比较疗效和安全性还没有系统地合成。网络荟萃分析旨在确定外用抗生素治疗寻常性痤疮的相对疗效和安全性。方法:我们从2000年1月1日至2023年8月22日通过PubMed、Embase、Cochrane图书馆、Web of Science、谷歌Scholar和ClinicalTrials.gov检索MEDLINE,并于2025年10月21日更新了检索。随机对照试验比较局部抗生素单药治疗与安慰剂或其他局部抗生素治疗寻常痤疮患者。疗效结果包括炎性病变、非炎性病变和总病变的平均绝对减少,以及治疗成功(在研究者的总体评估中定义为2级减少)。主要安全终点是因不良事件而停药。结果:本综述纳入32项研究,包括34项随机对照试验,22,645例患者。与安慰剂相比,只有5%氨苯砜[- 29.8(95%可信区间[CI] - 55.4至- 4.1)]和2%红霉素[- 24.0 (95% CI - 45.7至- 2.1)]显著减少炎症灶计数。对于非炎症性病变计数,阿奇霉素2% [- 58.9 (95% CI - 85.5至- 31.7)]、红霉素2% [- 42.0 (95% CI - 69.8至- 14.0)]、甲硝唑2% [- 14.6 (95% CI - 20.8至- 8.6)]和米诺环素4% [- 5.1 (95% CI - 9.2至- 2.2)]显示显著降低。然而,与安慰剂相比,没有任何治疗显示出病变总数的显著改善。关于研究者全球评估的改进,由于报告不一致,分析仅限于三种药物;结果显示,克林霉素1% [1.6 (95% CI 1.1 ~ 2.3)]、GDC 268洗剂(克林霉素磷酸外用洗剂1%)[2.2 (95% CI 1.1 ~ 4.4)]和米诺环素4% [2.2 (95% CI 1.5 ~ 3.5)]优于安慰剂。因不良事件而停药的数据显示出显著的异质性,需要谨慎解释。结论:目前的证据表明,局部抗生素单药治疗在不同的病变类型中产生不一致的疗效和不确定的安全性。鉴于缺乏强有力的证据表明其优于安慰剂,以及全球对抗生素耐药性的关注,常规抗生素单一治疗在寻常性痤疮的治疗中应受到限制。临床试验注册:PROSPERO注册号:CRD42022297060。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
3.10%
发文量
108
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical Drug Investigation provides rapid publication of original research covering all phases of clinical drug development and therapeutic use of drugs. The Journal includes: -Clinical trials, outcomes research, clinical pharmacoeconomic studies and pharmacoepidemiology studies with a strong link to optimum prescribing practice for a drug or group of drugs. -Clinical pharmacodynamic and clinical pharmacokinetic studies with a strong link to clinical practice. -Pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic studies in healthy volunteers in which significant implications for clinical prescribing are discussed. -Studies focusing on the application of drug delivery technology in healthcare. -Short communications and case study reports that meet the above criteria will also be considered. Additional digital features (including animated abstracts, video abstracts, slide decks, audio slides, instructional videos, infographics, podcasts and animations) can be published with articles; these are designed to increase the visibility, readership and educational value of the journal’s content. In addition, articles published in Clinical Drug Investigation may be accompanied by plain language summaries to assist readers who have some knowledge, but non in-depth expertise in, the area to understand important medical advances.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书