dc.contributor.author
Pennitz, Antonia
dc.contributor.author
Kinberger, Maria
dc.contributor.author
Avila Valle, Gabriela
dc.contributor.author
Passeron, Thierry
dc.contributor.author
Nast, Alexander
dc.contributor.author
Werner, Ricardo N.
dc.date.accessioned
2025-04-03T16:27:44Z
dc.date.available
2025-04-03T16:27:44Z
dc.identifier.uri
https://refubium.fu-berlin.de/handle/fub188/47144
dc.identifier.uri
http://dx.doi.org/10.17169/refubium-46862
dc.description.abstract
Background
Melasma is a common dermatological condition. Although its relevance as a skin condition is primarily of a cosmetic nature, it may affect the patient’s wellbeing and quality of life. A broad range of treatment options is available, which makes it difficult to choose the most appropriate of those treatments.
Objectives
To summarize and critically appraise evidence from investigator‐blinded randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the efficacy and safety of self‐applied topical interventions for melasma.
Methods
We systematically searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane CENTRAL trials database for RCTs on topical, self‐administered interventions for patients diagnosed with melasma. Eligibility was limited to RCTs that explicitly stated in their methods section (i) how they generated the random allocation sequence, and (ii) that the study outcome assessor was blinded to the participants’ group allocation. Outcomes of interest included evaluator‐assessed clinical scores (such as the Melasma Area and Severity Index), quality of life and patient‐reported outcomes, as well as safety outcomes. The study findings were meta‐analysed, pooling data from studies on the same comparisons, if this was possible. We assessed confidence in effect estimates using the GRADE approach.
Results
Our searches yielded 1078 hits. We included 36 studies reporting on 47 different comparisons of interventions. These included medical treatments such as ‘triple combination cream’ (TCC), over‐the‐counter cosmetic and herbal products, as well as sun creams covering different light spectra. Pooling data was possible for only two comparisons, topical tranexamic acid (TXA) vs. hydroquinone (HQ) and cysteamine vs. placebo. Direct comparisons were available for a variety of interventions; however, the reported outcomes varied greatly. Overall, our confidence in the effect estimates ranged from very low to high.
Conclusions
Our findings indicate that TCC and its individual components HQ and tretinoin are effective in lightening melasma. Besides these established self‐applied treatment options, we identified further medical treatments as well as promising cosmetic and herbal product treatment approaches. Furthermore, evidence suggests that using broad‐spectrum sunscreen covering both the visible and ultraviolet‐light spectrum enhances the treatment efficacy of HQ. However, with mostly small RCTs comparing treatments directly using a broad range of outcomes, further research is needed to draw conclusions about which treatment is most effective.
en
dc.rights.uri
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
dc.subject
sunscreening agents
en
dc.subject.ddc
600 Technik, Medizin, angewandte Wissenschaften::610 Medizin und Gesundheit::610 Medizin und Gesundheit
dc.title
Self-applied topical interventions for melasma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of data from randomized, investigator-blinded clinical trials
dc.type
Wissenschaftlicher Artikel
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.doi
10.1111/bjd.21244
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.journaltitle
British Journal of Dermatology
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.number
3
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.originalpublishername
Wiley-Blackwell
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.pagestart
309
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.pageend
317
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.volume
187
refubium.affiliation
Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin
refubium.funding
DEAL Wiley
refubium.resourceType.isindependentpub
no
dcterms.accessRights.openaire
open access
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.pmid
35290681
dcterms.isPartOf.issn
0007-0963
dcterms.isPartOf.eissn
1365-2133