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.
Research on psychological treatment of depression in inpatients is not conclusive,with some studies finding clear positive effects and other studies finding no significant benefit compared to usual care or structured pharmacotherapy. The results of a meta-analysis investigating how effective psychological treatment is for depressed inpatients are presented. A systematic search in bibliographical databases resulted in 12 studieswith a total of 570 respondents. This set of studies had sufficient statistical power to detect small effect sizes. Psychological treatments had a small (g=0.29), but statistically significant additional effect on depression compared to usual care and structured pharmacological treatments only. This corresponded with a numbersneeded- to-be-treated of 6.17. Heterogeneity was zero inmost analyses, and not significant in all analyses. There wasno indication for significant publication bias. Effectswere not associatedwith characteristics of the population, the interventions and the design of the studies. Although the number of studieswas small, and the quality ofmany studieswas not optimal, it seems safe to conclude that psychological treatments have a small but robust effect on depression in depressed inpatients. More high-quality research is needed to verify these results.
Background: There is still limited evidence on the effectiveness and implementation of smoking cessation interventions for people with severe mental illness (SMI) in Dutch outpatient psychiatric settings. The present study aimed to establish expert consensus on the core components and strategies to optimise practical implementation of a smoking cessation intervention for people treated by Flexible Assertive Community Treatment (FACT) teams in the Netherlands. Design: A modified Delphi method was applied to reach consensus on three core components (behavioural counselling, pharmacological treatment and peer support) of the intervention. The Delphi panel comprised five experts with different professional backgrounds. We proposed a first intervention concept. The panel critically examined the evolving concept in three iterative rounds of 90 min each. Responses were recorded, transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed. Results: Overall, results yielded that behavioural counselling should focus on preparation for smoking cessation, guidance, relapse prevention and normalisation. Pharmacological treatment consisting of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), Varenicline or Bupropion, under supervision of a psychiatrist, was recommended. The panel agreed on integrating peer support as a regular part of the intervention, thus fostering emotional and practical support among patients. Treatment of a co-morbid cannabis use disorder needs to be integrated into the intervention if indicated. Regarding implementation, staff’s motivation to support smoking cessation was considered essential. For each ambulatory team, two mental health care professionals will have a central role in delivering the intervention. Conclusions: This study provides insight into expert consensus on the core components of a smoking cessation intervention for people with SMI. The results of this study were used for the development of a comprehensive smoking cessation program.
