Summary This review highlights clinically important findings about acne treatment identified in nine systematic reviews published or indexed in the period March 2009 to February 2010. A systematic review of dietary influences on acne suggested that a possible role of dietary factors in acne cannot be dismissed, as the studies to date have not been sufficiently large or robust. Another review looked at benzoyl peroxide, which may be enjoying a comeback because of increasing bacterial resistance to antibiotics, and suggested that there was a lack of evidence that stronger preparations were more effective than weaker ones. The same team also carried out a systematic review addressing the question of whether topical retinoids cause an initial worsening of acne. They found no evidence to suggest initial worsening of acne severity, although there was evidence of skin irritation that typically settled by 8–12 weeks. A review of oral isotretinoin and psychiatric side‐effects reinforced a possible link between the two, although it pointed out that the better‐quality primary studies were still inconclusive. An updated Cochrane Review confirmed the efficacy of combined oral contraceptives (COCs) in reducing acne lesion counts. It also found that the evidence to support COCs containing cyproterone acetate over others was very limited. Another Cochrane Review failed to show any benefit of spironolactone for acne, based on limited studies. Three reviews examined laser and light therapies, and found some evidence of superiority only for blue or blue/red light treatment over placebo light, but a general absence of comparisons against other acne treatments. Photodynamic therapy had consistent benefits over placebo but was associated with significant side‐effects and was not shown to be better than topical adapalene.

No abstract

No abstract

Table 1. Simultaneous positive reactions to preservatives by percentage, significance calculated using Fisher's exact test and Bonferroni correction for false positives. Intensity of colour responds to magnitude of association.It is well recognized that formaldehydereleasing preservatives show frequent cross-reactions with each other and formaldehyde, based to a large extent on the quantity of formaldehyde released and the initial molecule (1). The likelihood that preservatives not releasing formaldehyde would show any concomitant reaction appears not to have been previously investigated. We looked into this possibility in the biocide preservatives contained in the British Contact Dermatitis Society (BCDS) baseline series. MethodNine centres across the UK using the BCDS database participated in a data-sharing exercise, agreeing to pool anonymized data including patient demographics and patch-testing results for the BCDS baseline series (2). In total, 6948 patients between 2004 and 2005 underwent patch testing with readings at D2 and D4 according to International Contact Dermatitis Research Group criteria. Preservative allergens included in the baseline series over this period remained unchanged (formaldehyde 1% aq, paraben mix 16% pet., quaternium-15 1% pet., methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone 0.01% aq, 2-bromo-2-nitropropane-1,3-diol 0.25% pet., imidazolidinyl urea 2.0% pet., diazolidinyl urea 2.0% pet., methyldibromo glutaronitrile 0.3% pet., chloroxylenol 0.5% pet.). ResultsIn total, 142 patients tested positive to formaldehyde (2% of those tested). The frequencies of sensitization for the other allergens were: quaternium-15 2%, methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone 2%,

No abstract