Acne vulgaris is the most common skin disease in the world, particularly affecting adolescents and young adults. Telemedicine has grown rapidly in the past few years and represents a new simplification in modern medicine. The aim of this literature review is to provide an overview of acne vulgaris in teledermatology and to identify the differences between teledermatological examinations and face‐to‐face consultations. For this purpose, a systematic literature search of the PubMed database was performed, up to the end of 2019. The content of 109 studies matching the keywords acne, acne vulgaris, teledermatology, telehealth, or telemedicine was screened, and 13 studies were systematically reviewed and compared. The analysis of the studies shows that patients living in remote areas benefit greatly from online visits since it is less time consuming and financially favorable, which is also associated with higher patient satisfaction. In addition, the satisfaction of doctors, the main safety concerns of patients, and a brief insight into telemedicine in other specialties are discussed. Taking the results of the different studies into account, the conclusion is that telemedicine is well accepted and often even desired by most patients and will likely become a very important part of modern medicine in the future.

Background: Acne vulgaris is one of the most common dermatological diseases, especially in adolescents and young adults. Objective: The current study aimed to compare teledermatology versus face-to-face consultation in the follow-up of patients with mild-to-moderate acne. Methods: In this investigator-initiated, parallel arms, open-label, randomized clinical trial, after screening, participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to be followed up through teledermatology or standard face-to-face consultations for a period of 6 months. The primary endpoint was the cumulative time spent by physician for consultations or online assessments. Results: 24 patients (21 females and 3 males; mean age 23.0 ± 3.3 years) underwent randomization in the two study groups. In intention-to-treat analysis, the cumulative time spent by physician was higher in the teledermatology group compared to face-to-face consultations with an average difference of 8:24 mm:ss (95% CI: 1:17-15:31). However, the cumulative time spent by the patient was significantly lower in the teledermatology group (mean difference 1:21:39 hh:mm:ss; 95% CI: 41:51-2:01:27). An optimal reduction of acne-severity was observed in both groups, without significant differences between them. The patient’s satisfaction did not change significantly over time and between groups, and was generally quite high. AEs were reported by one patient in the teledermatology group and four patients in the consultation group. Conclusion: Acne might be an optimal disease to be followed up using a teledermatology platform, to relieve the burden on patients and medical staff. However, it is necessary to implement more user-friendly platforms in order to achieve the best possible results in the treatment and follow-up of acne patients.