Disclosures

Did you receive any funding to support your research for this TOPIC?
Yes
Please specify entities (individual, company, society): Wellman Center for Photomedicine, Harvard Medical School

Were you provided with any honoraria, payment or other compensation for your work on this study?
Yes
Please specify entities (individual, company, society): Research scholar, Wellman Center for Photomedicine, Harvard Medical School

Do you have any financial relationship with any entity which may closely compete with the medications, materials or instruments covered by your study?
No

Do you own or have you applied for any patents in conjunction with the instruments, medications or materials discussed in your study?
Yes
Please specify date...: 2 U.S. Patent, 4 U.S. Patent Publications
and status : in year 2015, 2015, 2018, 2021, 2022, 2023

This work was not supported by any direct or non direct funding. It is under the author's own responsability

Disclosures

Did you receive any funding to support your research for this TOPIC?
No
Please specify entities (individual, company, society): Spike

Were you provided with any honoraria, payment or other compensation for your work on this study?
No

Do you have any financial relationship with any entity which may closely compete with the medications, materials or instruments covered by your study?
No

Do you own or have you applied for any patents in conjunction with the instruments, medications or materials discussed in your study?
No

This work was not supported by any direct or non direct funding. It is under the author's own responsability

Disclosures

Did you receive any funding to support your research for this TOPIC?
No

Were you provided with any honoraria, payment or other compensation for your work on this study?
No

Do you have any financial relationship with any entity which may closely compete with the medications, materials or instruments covered by your study?
No

Do you own or have you applied for any patents in conjunction with the instruments, medications or materials discussed in your study?
No

This work was not supported by any direct or non direct funding. It is under the author's own responsability

Disclosures

Did you receive any funding to support your research for this TOPIC?
Yes
Please specify entities (individual, company, society): Thailand Science Research and Innovation

Were you provided with any honoraria, payment or other compensation for your work on this study?
No

Do you have any financial relationship with any entity which may closely compete with the medications, materials or instruments covered by your study?
No

Do you own or have you applied for any patents in conjunction with the instruments, medications or materials discussed in your study?
No

This work was not supported by any direct or non direct funding. It is under the author's own responsability

Disclosures

Did you receive any funding to support your research for this TOPIC?
No

Were you provided with any honoraria, payment or other compensation for your work on this study?
No

Do you have any financial relationship with any entity which may closely compete with the medications, materials or instruments covered by your study?
No

Do you own or have you applied for any patents in conjunction with the instruments, medications or materials discussed in your study?
No

This work was not supported by any direct or non direct funding. It is under the author's own responsability

Disclosures

Did you receive any funding to support your research for this TOPIC?
No

Were you provided with any honoraria, payment or other compensation for your work on this study?
No

Do you have any financial relationship with any entity which may closely compete with the medications, materials or instruments covered by your study?
No

Do you own or have you applied for any patents in conjunction with the instruments, medications or materials discussed in your study?
No

This work was not supported by any direct or non direct funding. It is under the author's own responsability

Disclosures

Did you receive any funding to support your research for this TOPIC?
No

Were you provided with any honoraria, payment or other compensation for your work on this study?
No

Do you have any financial relationship with any entity which may closely compete with the medications, materials or instruments covered by your study?
No

Do you own or have you applied for any patents in conjunction with the instruments, medications or materials discussed in your study?
No

This work was not supported by any direct or non direct funding. It is under the author's own responsability

Objectives: 1: Comparing different modalities in acne scars regarding to its efficacy and safety profiles to Co2 fractional laser as monotherapy.
2: Evaluate and Rank the various treatments as a network meta-analysis.

Introduction: Acne scars continues to be one of the most common cutaneous problem dermatologists faces in their daily practice and the selection of treatment option remains challenging. Our aim from this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of various interventions from clinical trials that compared fractional CO2 laser (FL) for acne scarring.

Materials / method: A random-effect model of network meta-analysis with frequentist framework was performed for all treatments compared to fractional CO2 laser. Mean differences (MDs) of ECCA grading scale (échelle d'évaluation clinique des cicatrices d'acné) was counted.

Results: Eight clinical trials were enrolled to assess the acne scars severity using the ECCA. Ranking probability
showed that fractional CO2 laser combined to Platelets rich Plasma (FL-PRP) was significantly superior to
fractional CO2 laser alone (FL) (MD = 19.60, 95% CI 12.23, 26.96). FL-PRP was more effective to reduce
the scarring compared to FL with stem cells (SCs) (MD = -19.71 (-32.99, -6.44). A pairwise NMA showed

that (FL+PRP) had significant reduction of the acne grading scale compared to micro-needling or micro-peeling, (MD = -28.87 (-52.63, -5.11), MD = -19.70 (-33.24, -6.15), respectively

Conclusion: Dual therapy as fractional CO2 laser combined to platelets rich plasma seem to be effective compared to fractional CO2 laser as monotherapy.

Disclosures

Did you receive any funding to support your research for this TOPIC?
No

Were you provided with any honoraria, payment or other compensation for your work on this study?
No

Do you have any financial relationship with any entity which may closely compete with the medications, materials or instruments covered by your study?
No

Do you own or have you applied for any patents in conjunction with the instruments, medications or materials discussed in your study?
No

This work was not supported by any direct or non direct funding. It is under the author's own responsability

Objectives: Primary objective -

To compare the efficacy of 40% mandelic acid peel with 30% salicylic acid peel in South Indian patients suffering from mild‐to‐moderate facial acne vulgaris


Secondary objective -

To compare the safety of 40% mandelic acid peel with 30% salicylic acid peel in South Indian patients suffering from mild‐to‐moderate facial acne vulgaris.

Introduction: Chemical Peel is a cosmetic procedure that is becoming a popular modality in treating acne vulgaris (AV). Mandelic acid (MA) is an upcoming peeling agent for AV due to its anti‐inflammatory and antibacterial traits. Hence, it is worthwhile to appraise this newer agent's effectiveness and safety profile and compare it with a more traditional and established peeling agent, salicylic acid (SA), in the treatment of AV.

Materials / method: Study Population : Patients with mild to moderate acne vulgaris (Grade 1 and Grade 2) in the age group of 15 to 45 years.
Prospective comparative study
SAMPLE SIZE: 100 (50 in each group)
Inclusion Criteria
• Male and Female patients (Age group 15 - 45 years)
• Patients with mild to moderate acne (Grades I and II).
• Patients with facial lesions only
Exclusion Criteria
• Pregnant and lactating women
• History of hypersensitivity to peeling agents
• Patients with severe acne vulgaris (Grades III and IV)
• Patients with hypertrophic scars or keloids

Results: Both agents showed almost similar ability in improving mild‐to‐moderate AV. Salicylic acid was found better in treating inflammatory lesions, while MA had the upper hand in treating non-inflammatory lesions. Overall, there was no notable variation between the two peels in changing MAS and percentage reduction in MAS. However, adverse effects were higher with SA peel.

Conclusion: Conclusion: The 40% MA peel was equally effective as 30% SA peel in mild‐to‐moderate facial AV. However, safety profile and tolerability were better in the MA peel group than the SA peel group.

Limitations - In our study there was no follow‐up after 12 weeks of treatment to find out the long-term efficacy as well as reoccurrence rate of acne vulgaris. Therefore, long‐term prospective studies, with a greater number of participants and with a follow‐up period of at least six months is needed to substantiate our result.

Disclosures

Did you receive any funding to support your research for this TOPIC?
No

Were you provided with any honoraria, payment or other compensation for your work on this study?
No

Do you have any financial relationship with any entity which may closely compete with the medications, materials or instruments covered by your study?
No

Do you own or have you applied for any patents in conjunction with the instruments, medications or materials discussed in your study?
No

This work was not supported by any direct or non direct funding. It is under the author's own responsability

Disclosures

Did you receive any funding to support your research for this TOPIC?
No

Were you provided with any honoraria, payment or other compensation for your work on this study?
No

Do you have any financial relationship with any entity which may closely compete with the medications, materials or instruments covered by your study?
No

Do you own or have you applied for any patents in conjunction with the instruments, medications or materials discussed in your study?
No

This work was not supported by any direct or non direct funding. It is under the author's own responsability