BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of 15% azelaic acid (AzA) gel in treating acne-induced post-inflammatory erythema (PIE) and post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH). The effects of 15% AzA gel on acne, skin barrier function, and quality of life were also evaluated.
METHODS: A total of 72 patients with mild to moderate acne were enrolled in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Patients were divided into two groups: patients in the AzA group applied 15% AzA gel twice daily for 12 weeks, and those in the placebo group applied AzA-free gel. Clinical evaluations using non-invasive skin detection technologies, including VISIA skin analysis, dermoscopy, and skin physiological function tests, were performed at 0, 4, 8, and 12 weeks. Main outcome measures included the post-acne hyperpigmentation index (PAHPI), melanin, hemoglobin, individual typology angle, water content, transepidermal water loss, and sebum. Investigator Global Assessment) and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) assessments were conducted at weeks 0 and 12. Adverse reactions were recorded.
RESULTS: Of the 72 patients at study initiation, 60 completed the trial. At 8 and 12 weeks, patients in the AzA group showed significantly reduced PAHPI for PIE lesions compared to baseline and patients receiving placebo (P < 0.05). Patients in both groups exhibited reduced PIH lesions at weeks 8 and 12 that differed significantly from baseline (P < 0.05). Hemoglobin content decreased significantly in AzA-treated PIE lesions compared to those treated with placebo at week 12 (P < 0.05). Melanin content decreased significantly in AzA-treated PIH lesions at week 12 (P < 0.05). The AzA group showed higher improvement in DLQI (P < 0.05), and greater overall satisfaction (P < 0.05) compared to placebo.
CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that 15% AzA gel effectively improved acne-induced PIE and PIH with minimal adverse reactions, making it a viable clinical application. In the study population, it had no adverse effects on skin barrier function and contributed positively to acne improvement and patient quality of life.
BACKGROUND: This study was registered with the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR.org.cn) under the identifier ChiCTR2300076959. The registration date was 25 October 2023, retrospectively registered.

BACKGROUND: Post-inflammatory erythema (PIE) and post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH) are the most common acne-related sequelae with no effective treatments. By combining different cut-off filters, intense pulsed light (IPL) therapy can effectively treat these conditions with few side effects. While the safety and effectiveness of IPL for treating post-burn hyperpigmentation is well known, there is little evidence for its benefits for acne-related PIH. In this article, we evaluate the efficacy and safety of IPL for the treatment of acne-related PIE and PIH.
METHODS: This retrospective study evaluated 60 patients with more than 6 months of PIE and PIH treated by the same IPL device and similar protocols. The treatment included three to seven sessions at 4-6-week intervals, and three cut-off filters (640 nm, 590 nm and 560 nm) were used sequentially in each session. Using the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS), Cardiff Acne Disability Index (CADI), and Erythema Assessment Scale (EAS), patients were evaluated on the basis of their facial photographs. The facial brown spots and red areas were visualised and analysed using the VISIA-CR system. Six months after the last treatment, the patients were assessed for acne relapse or any side effects.Please check and confirm that the authors and their respective affiliations have been correctly processed and amend if necessary.Checked and confirmed. No further corrections.
RESULTS: On the basis of the GAIS, 49 of 60 patients (81.7%) showed complete or partial clearance of erythema and hyperpigmentation. The CADI and EAS scores showed significant improvement (p < 0.01) after IPL treatment compared with pre-treatment. A significant reduction (p < 0.01) in the facial brown spots and red areas was seen after IPL treatment. While no long-term side effects were reported, seven patients (11.7%) experienced acne relapse at follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS: IPL is an effective and safe treatment for acne-related PIE and PIH.

The 755 nm picosecond Alexandrite laser has been demonstrated to be effective and well tolerated in patients with acne scars. In this split-face, investigator-blinded study, 16 patients with post-inflammatory erythema (PIE) and acne scars were randomized to receive laser treatment on half the face, with the other half serving as a control. The treatment side demonstrated a significant improvement in both PIE and scars compared to the baseline and also when compared to the control side. Treatment was well-tolerated, with only transient and mild erythema and edema reported as side-effects. In our study, the picosecond Alexandrite laser was safe and effective in the treatment of PIE and acne scars. Comprehensive treatment outcomes should be taken into consideration when deciding on which device to use.

Recently, picosecond laser treatment has been used as an effective treatment for acne scars. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of a picosecond alexandrite laser with a diffractive lens array in the treatment of acne scars in Chinese patients.
Patients with facial acne scars were treated with a picosecond alexandrite laser in three sessions at 4- to 6-week intervals and followed up for 2 months. Primary outcomes were measured by physicians\' blinded evaluation of the acne scar using the ECCA (échelle d\'éva physicians\'luation clinique des cicatrices d\'acné) grading scale. The secondary outcomes included the investigator global assessment (IGA) on the improvement of post-inflammatory erythema (PIE), patients\' assessment of improvement on a 4-point scale and of satisfaction on a 5-point scale. Pain scores and adverse effects were also evaluated.
Twenty patients with Fitzpatrick skin types III and IV were enrolled in the study and completed all treatment and follow-up visits. The mean ECCA scores fell from 197.75 ± 35.26 to 142.00 ± 35.92 (a 28% improvement), and the change was significant (P = 0.000). The mean IGA score of PIE improvement was 3.03 ± 0.75 (0 = no improvement and 4 = 76-100% improvement). On the basis of the patients\' self-assessment, the average improvement scores were 2.30 ± 0.98 (0 indicating 0-25% improvement and 3 indicating >75% improvement). In total, 50% and 30% of the patients were \"satisfied\" and \"very satisfied,\" respectively, with the treatment. The mean pain score was 3.20 ± 0.50 (0 = no pain, 10 = maximum pain) with topical anesthesia. The adverse effects included transient and mild erythema, edema, and scabbing.
Treatment with a picosecond alexandrite laser with a diffractive lens array is effective and safe for acne scars in Chinese patients. Lasers Surg. Med. © 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.