Atopic dermatitis is a chronic inflammatory dermatosis characterized by pruritic, scaly, erythematous lesions. Its incidence varies but is estimated to be approximately 20% in children and between 7 and 14% in adults, with variation amongst countries. It is a multifactorial condition, with a complex interplay between genetic, immunological, and environmental factors. Research into the inflammatory response has identified new therapeutic targets that work to reduce inflammation and subsequently reduce flares. This study explores existing therapeutic agents for atopic dermatitis as well as newer therapies such as biologics and small molecules, drawing upon each agent’s mechanism of action, relevant landmark clinical trials, efficacy, and safety profile. Current therapies include emollients, corticosteroids, cyclosporine A, calcineurin inhibitors, phototherapy, and methotrexate. Biologics described include dupilumab, tralokinumab, lebrikizumab, nemolizumab, and rocatinlimab. Small molecules inhibitors include Janus kinase inhibitors, phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitors, transient receptor potential vanilloid subfamily V member 1 antagonist, and aryl hydrocarbon receptor antagonist.

Introduction Acne vulgaris, a chronic inflammatory condition, is associated with significant physical and psychosocial burden. Since 2019, three new topical agents for acne vulgaris have been approved in the USA and Canada. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the efficacy between twice-daily clascoterone cream 1%, once-daily trifarotene 0.005% cream, and once-daily tazarotene 0.045% lotion for acne treatment. Methods Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing clascoterone, trifarotene, or tazarotene with vehicle in patients with moderate-to-severe acne were identified from a systematic literature review and included in a meta-analysis. Primary outcomes were percentage reduction in inflammatory and noninflammatory lesion count (ILC and NILC, respectively) and treatment success rate (≥ 2-grade improvement in Investigator’s Global Assessment or Evaluator’s Global Severity Score and a rating of clear or almost clear) at week 12. DerSimonian and Laird random-effects models with the inverse variance method were used to calculate the mean difference (MD) for percentage reduction in ILC and NILC, and odds ratios (ORs) for the rate of treatment success. Results Six Phase 3 RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. The analyses showed robust differences favoring the interventions for ILC (MD: − 11.5; 95% confidence interval [CI]: − 14.39, − 8.62), NILC (MD: − 12.25; 95% CI: − 15.21, − 9.29), and treatment success rate (OR: 2.14; 95% CI: 1.81, 2.53). No differences were observed between clascoterone, trifarotene, and tazarotene for ILC (MD: − 12.8, − 11.2, and − 10.1, respectively), NILC (MD: − 11.6, − 13.9, and − 12.8, respectively), or treatment success rate (OR: 2.9, 1.9, and 2.1, respectively (all P > 0.05). Conclusion No significant differences in efficacy were observed between clascoterone, trifarotene, and tazarotene after 12 weeks of treatment in patients with moderate-to-severe acne. Differences in application frequency and safety profile should also be taken into consideration when making treatment decisions.

Background: Lichen sclerosus (LS) is a chronic, inflammatory dermatosis that affects both genital and extragenital sites. It is often difficult to treat and may lead to a variety of complications if not adequately treated. The mainstay of therapy involves topical corticosteroids, topical calcineurin inhibitors, and systemic immunomodulators. Although a variety of topical, oral, and procedural therapies are available, a review comparing relative efficacy is lacking. To this end, this systematic review aimed to summarize the literature regarding treatment modalities and their respective response rates in patients with genital LS. Methods: A literature search was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Results: This review qualitatively summarizes information from 31 randomized controlled trials, encapsulating a total of 1507 patients with LS, the majority of which were female (n = 1374, 91%). Topical corticosteroids, the mainstay of therapy for LS, were discussed throughout the literature, and proved to be more efficient than topical calcineurin inhibitors, topical hormonal therapy, topical vitamin E oil and cold cream. However, other treatment modalities proved to be more efficient than topical corticosteroids, including CO₂ and Nd:YAG laser therapies, and the addition of polydeoxyribonucleotide intradermal injections, to steroid therapy. Finally, other modalities that proved to be efficient in the treatment of LS included silk undergarments, human fibroblast lysate cream, platelet-rich plasma, acitretin, and surgical intervention. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials. Limitations included the inclusion of only randomized controlled trials, moderate or high risk of bias, and heterogeneity in treatment regimens, among others. Conclusion: Although high-potency topical corticosteroids have validated efficacy in the management of LS, other treatment modalities, including steroid-sparing agents and/or procedural adjuncts, have been demonstrated to have a beneficial role in the treatment of LS.

Introduction: Ocular rosacea is an underdiagnosed form of rosacea that may occur with or without typical cutaneous signs of rosacea. One of the common manifestations is dry eyes. Although the use of intense pulsed light (IPL) in the treatment of rosacea-related dry eyes has been reported, a recent review is lacking. Methods: A scoping review was performed to summarize the efficacy of IPL in the treatment of ocular rosacea. Results: Five articles were included, representing 108 patients, with a mean age of 58.4 years. Based on available data, 59.2% (n = 58/98) were female. The studies detailed the use of IPL in combination with meibomian gland expression treatment. Overall, 91% (n = 89/98) of patients with ocular rosacea treated with IPL had a partial response and 9% (n = 9/98) had no response. IPL therapy did not lead to complete recovery in any of the included patients. One participant experienced an adverse event across the included studies. Conclusions: IPL is a promising treatment modality for ocular rosacea, as demonstrated by its ability to relieve dry eye symptoms with limited adverse events. Further research into this novel treatment is necessary to ascertain its role in the management of ocular rosacea.