Search

Background: Acne, a commonly treated skin disease, requires patient-centered management due to its varying presentations, chronicity, and impact on health-related quality of life. Despite this, evidence-based clinical guidelines focus primarily on clinical severity of facial acne, omitting important patient- and disease-related factors, including ongoing management. Objectives: To generate recommendations to support patient-centered acne management, which incorporate priority and prognostic factors beyond conventional clinical severity, traditionally defined by grading the appearance and extent of visible lesions. Methods: The Personalizing Acne: Consensus of Experts consisted of 17 dermatologists who used a modified Delphi approach to reach consensus on statements regarding patient- and treatment-related factors pertaining to patient-centered acne management. Consensus was defined as ≥75% voting “agree” or “strongly agree.” Results: Recommendations based on factors such as acne sequelae, location of acne, high burden of disease, and individual patient features were generated and incorporated into the Personalized Acne Treatment Tool. Limitations: Recommendations are based on expert opinion, which may differ from patients’ perspectives. Regional variations in healthcare systems may not be represented. Conclusions: The Personalizing Acne: Consensus of Experts panel provided practical recommendations to facilitate individualized management of acne, based on patient features, which can be implemented to improve treatment outcomes, adherence, and patient satisfaction.

Background: Most people with acne are at risk of developing acne scars, but the impact of these scars on patients' quality of life is poorly researched. Objective: To assess the perspective of patients with acne scars and the impact of these scars on their emotional well-being and social functioning. Methods: A 60-minute interview of 30 adults with acne scars informed and contextualized the development of a cross-sectional survey of 723 adults with atrophic acne scars. Results: The main themes identified in the qualitative interviews included acceptability to self and others, social functioning, and emotional well-being. In the cross-sectional survey, 31.6%, 49.6%, and 18.8% of the participants had mild, moderate, and severe/very severe acne scarring. The survey revealed that 25.7% of the participants felt less attractive, 27.5% were embarrassed or self-conscious because of their scars, 8.3% reported being verbally and/or physically abused because of their scars on a regular basis, and 15.9% felt that they were unfairly dismissed from work. In addition, 37.5% of the participants believed that their scars affected people's perceptions about them, and 19.7% of the participants were very bothered about hiding their scars daily. Moreover, 35.5% of the participants avoided public appearances, and 43.2% felt that their scars had negatively impacted their relationships. Limitations: The temporal evaluation of the impact was not estimated. Conclusion: Even mild atrophic acne scarring can evoke substantial emotional, social, and functional concerns.

Background: The physical sequelae of acne include erythema, hyperpigmentation, and scarring, which are highly burdensome for patients. Early, effective treatment can potentially limit and prevent sequelae development, but there is a need for guidance for and evidence of prevention-oriented management to improve patient outcomes. Objective: To identify unmet needs of acne sequelae and generate expert recommendations to address gaps in clinical guidance. Methods: The Personalizing Acne: Consensus of Experts panel of 13 dermatologists used a modified Delphi approach to achieve a consensus on the clinical aspects of acne sequelae. A consensus was defined as ≥75% of the dermatologists voting “agree” or “strongly agree.” All voting was electronic and blinded. Results: The panel identified gaps in current guidance and made recommendations related to acne sequelae. These included identification and classification of sequelae, pertinent points to consider for patient consultations, and management aimed at reducing the development of sequelae. Limitations: The recommendations are based on expert opinion and made in the absence of high-quality evidence. Conclusions: The identified gaps should help inform future research and guideline development for acne sequelae. The consensus-based recommendations should also support the process of consultations throughout the patient journey, helping to reduce the development and burden of acne sequelae through improved risk factor recognition, early discussion, and appropriate management.

Background: Truncal acne is common and burdensome for patients; however, there is paucity of evidence and guidance for the management of truncal acne. Currently, clinical practice guidelines provide very little guidance on the assessment or management of truncal acne. Objectives: To identify unmet needs in truncal acne and make recommendations to address clinical and management gaps using an international consensus. Methods: The Personalising Acne: Consensus of Experts panel consisted of 13 dermatologists, who used a modified Delphi approach to reach a consensus on statements related to clinically relevant aspects of truncal acne evaluation and management. A consensus was defined as ≥75% of the panelists voting “agree” or “strongly agree.” The voting was electronic and blinded. Results: The panel identified gaps and made recommendations related to truncal acne identification, assessment, and grading; the evaluation of the impact on patients; and treatment goals and factors to be considered for its management. Limitations: The recommendations are based on expert opinion, in the absence of high-quality evidence. Conclusions: We highlighted addressing not just facial acne but also truncal acne during patient consultations. The recommendations made herein may help facilitate the care of patients who present with truncal acne, with or without facial acne.

Background: Acne is a chronic disease with a varying presentation that requires long-term management. Despite this, the clinical guidelines for acne offer limited guidance to facilitate personalized or longitudinal management of patients. Objectives: To generate recommendations to support comprehensive, personalized, long-term patient management that address all presentations of acne and its current and potential future burden. Methods: The Personalising Acne: Consensus of Experts panel consisted of 13 dermatologists who used a modified Delphi approach to reach consensus on statements related to longitudinal acne management. The consensus was defined as ≥75% voting “agree” or “strongly agree.” All voting was electronic and blinded. Results: Key management domains, consisting of distinct considerations, points to discuss with patients, and “pivot points” were identified and incorporated into the Personalised Acne Care Pathway. Long-term treatment goals and expectations and risk of (or fears about) sequelae are highlighted as particularly important to discuss frequently with patients. Limitations: Recommendations are based on expert opinion, which could potentially differ from patients' perspectives. Regional variations in health care systems may not have been captured. Conclusions: The Personalised Acne Care Pathway provides practical recommendations to facilitate the longitudinal management of acne, which can be used by health care professionals to optimize and personalize care throughout the patient journey.

Background: Acne confers an increased risk of physical, psychiatric, and psychosocial sequelae, potentially affecting multiple dimensions of health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Morbidity associated with truncal acne is poorly understood. Objective: To determine how severity and location of acne lesions impact the HRQoL of those who suffer from it. Methods: A total of 694 subjects with combined facial and truncal acne (F+T) and 615 with facial acne only (F) participated in an online, international survey. Participants self-graded the severity of their acne at different anatomical locations and completed the dermatology life quality index (DLQI). Results: The F+T participants were twice as likely to report “very large” to “extremely large” impact on HRQoL (ie, DLQI > 10 and children's DLQI [CDLQI] > 12) as compared with the F participants (DLQI: odds ratio [OR] 1.61 [95% confidence interval {CI} 1.02-2.54]; CDLQI: OR 1.86 [95% CI 1.10-3.14]). The impact of acne on HRQoL increased with increasing acne severity on the face (DLQI and CDLQI P values = .001 and .017, respectively), chest (P = .003; P = .008), and back (P = .001; P = .028). Limitations: Temporal evaluation of acne impact was not estimated. Conclusions: Facial and truncal acne was associated with a greater impact on HRQoL than facial acne alone. Increasing severity of truncal acne increases the adverse impact on HRQoL irrespective of the severity of facial acne.