Comparison of guidelines and consensus articles on the management of patients with acne with oral isotretinoin

Guidelines and consensus on the management of patients with acne aim to give evidence-based, expert-group recommendations. This review compares current guidelines and consensus articles to provide a compilation of recommendations on the treatment of acne with oral isotretinoin. Ten common, relevant, clinical questions are addressed, based on published recommendations, including the indications of isotretinoin, the proposed daily dose, the cumulative isotretinoin dose and the laboratory monitoring needed. Recommendations on special considerations are also addressed, including the timing of procedures and the question of an association of depression or inflammatory bowel disease with isotretinoin. A major limitation is the use of different classification systems for acne across guidelines. The recommended daily dose ranges from 0.3 to 0.5 mg/kg in the European guidelines to up to 1 mg/kg in the US guidelines. A specific duration of treatment of at least 6 months is only recommended in the European guidelines. All guidelines report the need of strict pregnancy prevention measures. The European, French and US guidelines recommend to monitor for symptoms of depression. Important clinical questions that are inconsistently addressed in guidelines include the age indication, the recommendation for a cumulative dose, the timing of procedures, the association of isotretinoin with IBD, the recommendation for preventing acne flares and for appropriate laboratory monitoring. These topics should be clearly included in the recommendations of guidelines as they are often raised in everyday clinical practice.     

Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials: Efficacy and Safety of UDCA-Based Therapies in Primary Biliary Cirrhosis

Major ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA)-based therapies for primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC) include UDCA only, or combined with either methotrexate (MTX), corticosteroids (COT), colchicine (COC), or bezafibrate (BEF). As the optimum treatment regimen is unclear and warrants exploration, we aimed to compare these therapies in terms of patient mortality or liver transplantation (MOLT) and adverse events (AE).PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Scopus were searched for randomized controlled trials up to August 31, 2014. We estimated the hazard ratios (HRs) for MOLT and odds ratios (ORs) for AE. A sensitivity analysis based on the dose of UDCA was also executed.Thirty-one eligible articles were included. Compared with COT plus UDCA, UDCA (HR 0.38, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.09–1.39), BEF plus UDCA (HR 0.29, 95% CI 0.02–4.83), COC plus UDCA (HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.07–2.25), MTX plus UDCA (HR 0.28, 95% CI 0.05–1.63), or OBS (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.11–2.01) all provided an increased risk of MOLT. With respect to drug AE profile, although not differing appreciably, BEF plus UDCA was associated with more AEs compared with UDCA (OR 3.16, 95% CI 0.59–20.67), COT plus UDCA (OR 2.27, 95% CI 0.15–33.36), COC plus UDCA (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.09–12.16), MTX plus UDCA (OR 2.03, 95% CI 0.23–17.82), or OBS (OR 3.00, 95% CI 0.53–20.75). The results of sensitivity analyses were highly consistent with previous analyses.COT plus UDCA was the optimal UDCA-based regimen for both MOLT and AEs. BEF plus UDCA was most likely to cause AEs, whereas monotherapy with UDCA and coadministriation of COT plus UDCA appeared to be associated with the fewest AEs for PBC treatment.