Acne vulgaris is considered one of the most common medical skin conditions globally, affecting approximately 85% of individuals worldwide. While acne is most prevalent among adolescents between 15 to 24 years old, it is not uncommon in adults either. Acne addresses a number of different challenges, causing a multidimensional disease burden. These challenges include clinical sequelae, such as post inflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH) and the chance of developing lifelong disfiguring scars, psychological aspects such as deficits in health related quality of life, chronicity of acne, economic factors, and treatment-related issues, such as antimicrobial resistance. The multidimensionality of the disease burden stipulates the importance of an effective and timely treatment in a well organised care system. Within the Netherlands, acne care provision is managed by several types of professional care givers, each approaching acne care from different angles: (I) general practitioners (GPs) who serve as ‘gatekeepers’ of healthcare within primary care; (II) dermatologists providing specialist medical care within secondary care; (III) dermal therapists, a non-physician medical professional with a bachelor’s degree, exclusively operating within the Australian and Dutch primary and secondary health care; and (IV) beauticians, mainly working within the cosmetology or wellness domain. However, despite the large variety in acne care services, many patients experience a delay between the onset of acne and receiving an effective treatment, or a prolonged use of care, which raises the question whether acne related care resources are being used in the most effective and (cost)efficient way. It is therefore necessary to gain insights into the organization and quality of Dutch acne health care beyond conventional guidelines and protocols. Exploring areas of care that may need improvement allow Dutch acne healthcare services to develop and improve the quality of acne care services in harmony with patient needs.
Background: Acne vulgaris is a multifaceted skin disorder, affecting more than 85% of young individuals worldwide. Pharmacological therapy is not always desirable because of the development of antibiotic resistance or the potential risk of adverse effects. Non‐pharmacological therapies can be viable alternatives for conventional therapies. However, sufficient evidence‐based support in the efficacy and safety of non‐pharmacological therapies is lacking. Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of several non‐pharmacological therapies in the treatment of acne vulgaris. Methods: A systematic literature review, including a best‐evidence synthesis, was performed to identify literature. Three electronic databases were accessed and searched for studies published between January 2000 and May 2017. Results: Thirty‐three eligible studies were included in our systematic review. Three main types of non‐pharmacological therapies were identified laser‐ and light‐based therapies, chemical peels and fractional microneedling radiofrequency. The majority of the included studies demonstrated a significant reduction in acne lesions. However, only seven studies had a high methodologic quality. Based on these seven trials, a best‐evidence synthesis was conducted. Strong evidence was found for glycolic acid (10–40%). Moderate evidence was found for amino fruit acid (20–60%), intense pulsed light (400–700 and 870–1200 nm) and the diode laser (1450 nm). Initially, conflicting evidence was found for pulsed dye laser (585–595 nm). The most frequently reported side‐effects for non‐pharmacological therapies included erythema, tolerable pain, purpura, oedema and a few cases of hyperpigmentation, which were in most cases mild and transient. Conclusion: Circumstantial evidence was found for non‐pharmacological therapies in the treatment of acne vulgaris. However, the lack of high methodological quality among included studies prevented us to draw clear conclusions, regarding a stepwise approach. Nevertheless, our systematic review including a best‐evidence synthesis did create order and structure in resulting outcomes in which a first step towards future research is generated.
Introduction: Besides dyspnoea and cough, patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) or sarcoidosis may experience distressing non-respiratory symptoms, such as fatigue or muscle weakness. However, whether and to what extent symptom burden differs between patients with IPF or sarcoidosis and individuals without respiratory disease remains currently unknown. Objectives: To study the respiratory and non-respiratory burden of multiple symptoms in patients with IPF or sarcoidosis and to compare the symptom burden with individuals without impaired spirometric values, FVC and FEV1 (controls). Methods: Demographics and symptoms were assessed in 59 patients with IPF, 60 patients with sarcoidosis and 118 controls (age ≥18 years). Patients with either condition were matched to controls by sex and age. Severity of 14 symptoms was assessed using a Visual Analogue Scale. Results: 44 patients with IPF (77.3% male; age 70.6±5.5 years) and 44 matched controls, and 45 patients with sarcoidosis (48.9% male; age 58.1±8.6 year) and 45 matched controls were analyzed. Patients with IPF scored higher on 11 symptoms compared to controls (p<0.05), with the largest differences for dyspnoea, cough, fatigue, muscle weakness and insomnia. Patients with sarcoidosis scored higher on all 14 symptoms (p<0.05), with the largest differences for dyspnoea, fatigue, cough, muscle weakness, insomnia, pain, itch, thirst, micturition (night, day). Conclusions: Generally, respiratory and non-respiratory symptom burden is significantly higher in patients with IPF or sarcoidosis compared to controls. This emphasizes the importance of awareness for respiratory and non-respiratory symptom burden in IPF or sarcoidosis and the need for additional research to study the underlying mechanisms and subsequent interventions.
