A systematic review and network meta-analysis of topical pharmacological, oral pharmacological, physical and combined treatments for acne vulgaris.

BACKGROUND: Various treatments for acne vulgaris exist, but little is known about their comparative effectiveness in relation to acne severity. OBJECTIVES: To identify best treatments for mild-to-moderate and moderate-to-severe acne, as determined by clinician-assessed morphological features. METHODS: We undertook a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing topical pharmacological, oral pharmacological, physical and combined treatments for mild-to-moderate and moderate-to-severe acne, published up to May 2020. Outcomes included percentage change in total lesion count from baseline, treatment discontinuation for any reason, and discontinuation owing to side-effects. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and bias adjustment models. Effects for treatments with ≥ 50 observations each compared with placebo are reported below. RESULTS: We included 179 RCTs with approximately 35 000 observations across 49 treatment classes. For mild-to-moderate acne, the most effective options for each treatment type were as follows: topical pharmacological - combined retinoid with benzoyl peroxide (BPO) [mean difference 26·16%, 95% credible interval (CrI) 16·75-35·36%]; physical - chemical peels, e.g. salicylic or mandelic acid (39·70%, 95% CrI 12·54-66·78%) and photochemical therapy (combined blue/red light) (35·36%, 95% CrI 17·75-53·08%). Oral pharmacological treatments (e.g. antibiotics, hormonal contraceptives) did not appear to be effective after bias adjustment. BPO and topical retinoids were less well tolerated than placebo. For moderate-to-severe acne, the most effective options for each treatment type were as follows: topical pharmacological - combined retinoid with lincosamide (clindamycin) (44·43%, 95% CrI 29·20-60·02%); oral pharmacological - isotretinoin of total cumulative dose ≥ 120 mg kg-1 per single course (58·09%, 95% CrI 36·99-79·29%); physical - photodynamic therapy (light therapy enhanced by a photosensitizing chemical) (40·45%, 95% CrI 26·17-54·11%); combined - BPO with topical retinoid and oral tetracycline (43·53%, 95% CrI 29·49-57·70%). Topical retinoids and oral tetracyclines were less well tolerated than placebo. The quality of included RCTs was moderate to very low, with evidence of inconsistency between direct and indirect evidence. Uncertainty in findings was high, in particular for chemical peels, photochemical therapy and photodynamic therapy. However, conclusions were robust to potential bias in the evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Topical pharmacological treatment combinations, chemical peels and photochemical therapy were most effective for mild-to-moderate acne. Topical pharmacological treatment combinations, oral antibiotics combined with topical pharmacological treatments, oral isotretinoin and photodynamic therapy were most effective for moderate-to-severe acne. Further research is warranted for chemical peels, photochemical therapy and photodynamic therapy for which evidence was more limited. What is already known about this topic? Acne vulgaris is the eighth most common disease globally. Several topical, oral, physical and combined treatments for acne vulgaris exist. Network meta-analysis (NMA) synthesizes direct and indirect evidence and allows simultaneous inference for all treatments forming an evidence network. Previous NMAs have assessed a limited range of treatments for acne vulgaris and have not evaluated effectiveness of treatments for moderate-to-severe acne. What does this study add? For mild-to-moderate acne, topical treatment combinations, chemical peels, and photochemical therapy (combined blue/red light; blue light) are most effective. For moderate-to-severe acne, topical treatment combinations, oral antibiotics combined with topical treatments, oral isotretinoin and photodynamic therapy (light therapy enhanced by a photosensitizing chemical) are most effective. Based on these findings, along with further clinical and cost-effectiveness considerations, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance recommends, as first-line treatments, fixed topical treatment combinations for mild-to-moderate acne and fixed topical treatment combinations, or oral tetracyclines combined with topical treatments, for moderate-to-severe acne.

Child health research and planning in Europe disadvantaged by major gaps and disparities in published statistics.

BACKGROUND: Population data, such as mortality and morbidity statistics, are essential for many reasons, including giving context for research, supporting action on health determinants, formulation of evidence-based policy for health care and outcome evaluation. However, when considering children, it is difficult to find such data, despite children comprising one-fifth of the European population and being in a key formative life stage and dependent on societal support. Moreover, it would be expected that there should be confidence in the key child health data available, with little to no discrepancy between recognized health statistic databases. METHODS: This study explored the main health databases in or including Europe to collate child mortality data, for both all-cause and specific-cause mortality. Tables were constructed for comparison of values and rankings. RESULTS: The results show that there are major differences in reported mortality data between two prominent health statistic databases, difference in coding systems, and unannounced changes within one of the databases. CONCLUSIONS: The lack of health data for children seems compounded by challenges to the trust and credibility, which are vital if these data are to have utility. Children and society are the losers, and resolution is needed as a priority.

European Union initiatives in child immunization-the need for child centricity, e-health and holistic delivery.

BACKGROUND: Low childhood immunization rates in Europe are causing concern and have triggered several EU initiatives. However, these are counter-factual as they make immunization a stand-alone issue and cut across best practice in integrated child health services. They also focus unduly on 'anti-vax' pressures, generalize 'vaccine hesitancy' and overlook practical difficulties and uncertainties encountered by parents in real world situations about presenting children for immunization. Meanwhile European expertize in child health electronic record systems and relevant standards are ignored despite their being a potentially sound foundation ripe for enhancement. METHODS: Situation and literature reviews, and cohesion of two European research projects, led to shared investigation. As a result, two cross-sectoral expert workshops were held to consider digital health standards for harmonizing integrated preventive child health including immunization, and the work of other stakeholders such as the World Health Organisation and the European Centre for Disease Control. RESULTS: Progress in child health information models and digital health standards was assessed, areas needing further standards development identified and desirable steps towards innovation in service delivery and record keeping agreed. CONCLUSION: The European Commission, member states and child health stakeholders should take an integrated approach to child health with immunization as a component. Service delivery should be sensitive to parental concerns and challenges, and the way child- and family-centric data are recorded and used should be enhanced. Services should be enabled by the International Patient Summary and related electronic health record standards and linkages, and evaluated to assess most effective systems and practice.

Use of home-based records for children in the countries of the WHO European Region

A home-based record (HBR) system has long been promoted by WHO as an effective tool for child health. The record contents, design and operation are unique to each individual country. This report compares the contents and processes for HBR use in all countries of the WHO European Region, drawing on a study by the Models of Child Health Appraised (MOCHA) project for European Union (EU) and European Economic Area (EEA) countries and matched work by the European Paediatric Association/Union of National European Paediatric Societies and Associations (EPA/UNEPSA) Working Group on Social Paediatrics and Public Health for the other countries. As of 2019, 22 of the 28 EU countries had HBRs in use, one of two EEA countries, and 14 of the other 23 countries. The study reports for each of these 37 countries the means of issue, age range of children covered and health topics included, together with comment on scope for parental input. Estimates are given of the extent of usage. Finally, the recent literature on HBR use is summarized.

Children's Immunisation in Europe - A Vision of Using the HL7 International Patient Summary to Transform Local Data into Child-Specific Information and Population Health Knowledge.

Immunisation is a key preventive health measure for children. E-health applications have been used for over 50 years, yet still there is no harmonization or standardization, while uncoordinated policy initiatives proliferate. Two EU research projects (Trillium II and MOCHA) have come together with experts and stakeholders, and used EU-wide situation analysis research to seek to stimulate development of data and process standards as a harmonizing force in a supporting policy environment, putting the child as the central data collation unit.

The Limited Extent of Accreditation Mechanisms for Websites and Mobile Applications in Europe.

A potentially useful resource for health promotion and guidance is eHealth. However, this field also presents challenges, and one of the most important obstacles is the lack of regulation, without which citizens including young people may be exposed to misleading or risky information and applications. The aim of this study was to investigate the extent of accreditation processes for mobile applications (apps) and websites in European countries, to determine whether regulation is on the agenda. A survey was conducted in 28 European Member States and 2 European Economic Area countries, between 2017 and 2018. Twenty-seven responses were collected. Six countries have accreditation processes for apps and eight countries have accreditation processes for websites. However, processes are fragmented and there is variety within and amongst countries.

The Presence of eHealth Support for Childhood Obesity Guidance.

A rising global obesity epidemic in children has implications for an increase in other chronic diseases and a negative social impact, which should not be ignored. A useful resource in this context could be eHealth due to its popularity amongst children. Additionally, telephone guidance is also considered a powerful health promotion tool. The aim of this study was to investigate the availability of mobile applications (apps), websites, helplines, and advice lines for child obesity guidance, in European countries. A survey was conducted in 28 European Member States and 2 European Economic Area countries, in 2017. Twenty-three responses were collected. Fourteen countries stated the presence of an obesity management website.