Identifying acne treatment uncertainties via a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership

Abstract

ObjectivesThe Acne Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) was set up to identify and rank treatment uncertainties by bringing together people with acne, and professionals providing care within and beyond the National Health Service (NHS).SettingThe UK with international participation.ParticipantsTeenagers and adults with acne, parents, partners, nurses, clinicians, pharmacists, private practitioners.MethodsTreatment uncertainties were collected via separate online harvesting surveys, embedded within the PSP website, for patients and professionals. A wide variety of approaches were used to promote the surveys to stakeholder groups with a particular emphasis on teenagers and young adults. Survey submissions were collated using keywords and verified as uncertainties by appraising existing evidence. The 30 most popular themes were ranked via weighted scores from an online vote. At a priority setting workshop, patients and professionals discussed the 18 highest-scoring questions from the vote, and reached consensus on the top 10.ResultsIn the harvesting survey, 2310 people, including 652 professionals and 1456 patients (58% aged 24 y or younger), made submissions containing at least one research question. After checking for relevance and rephrasing, a total of 6255 questions were collated into themes. Valid votes ranking the 30 most common themes were obtained from 2807 participants. The top 10 uncertainties prioritised at the workshop were largely focused on management strategies, optimum use of common prescription medications and the role of non-drug based interventions. More female than male patients took part in the harvesting surveys and vote. A wider range of uncertainties were provided by patients compared to professionals.ConclusionsEngaging teenagers and young adults in priority setting is achievable using a variety of promotional methods. The top 10 uncertainties reveal an extensive knowledge gap about widely used interventions and the relative merits of drug versus non-drug based treatments in acne management.

Light therapies for acne: abridged Cochrane systematic review including GRADE assessments

“…The question of safety and effectiveness of physical therapies, including light‐based treatments, for acne is listed among the top research priorities . Light therapies utilize light with different properties (wavelength, intensity, coherent or incoherent light) with the aim of achieving a beneficial result .…”

Response to ‘Views of oral antibiotics and advice seeking about acne: a qualitative study of online discussion forums’ based on evidence obtained from The Acne Priority Setting Partnership

“…published a review of online acne forum activity to explore concerns about the use of oral antibiotic treatment for acne . This prompted a review of related responses obtained from The Acne Priority Setting Partnership (PSP), 2013 . Information was collated from online harvesting surveys from both patients and healthcare professionals, within the PSP website.…”

Topical, Biological and Clinical Challenges in the Management of Patients with Acne Vulgaris

“…51,52 Topical, Biological and Clinical Challenges in the Management of Patients with Acne Vulgaris e158 | SQU Medical Journal, May 2016, Volume 16, Issue 2 c h a l l e n g e s i n m a n a g e m e n t Additional challenges in management include determining the definitive timing of topical acne treatments and optimal management of post-acne scarring and hyperpigmentation as well as maintaining patient adherence to treatment. 53 The time taken between the initiation of topical therapy and clinicallyrelevant improvement is an important factor. In a systematic review on acne treatment, Jacobs et al noted that different concentrations of BPO and adapalene did not seem to influence the time taken for resolution of inflammatory lesions; however, both agents produced earlier responses when compared to retinoids, particularly isotretinoin.…”