ArticleThe Journal of clinical and aesthetic dermatology2024
A Retrospective Review of a Cohort of Patients with Periorificial Dermatitis Treated with Sarecycline.
Article in The Journal of clinical and aesthetic dermatology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Periorificial dermatitis (POD) is a common, chronic, inflammatory facial skin rash that presents as tiny papules and papulopustules with underlying eczematous-like patches, typically confined to the perioral, perinasal, and periorbital areas. There is currently no Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-indicated treatment for POD; however, broad-spectrum antibiotics are efficacious as a treatment option. Broad-spectrum antibiotics negatively impact gut flora and lead to antibiotic resistance. Narrow-spectrum tetracyclines, such as sarecycline, have a low potential for promoting bacterial resistance and gastrointestinal issues. Objective: We conducted a retrospective chart review in order to evaluate the efficacy of sarecycline in a cohort of patients diagnosed with POD that were treated with sarecycline. Methods: A review of medical records was completed using an electronic medical record. Inclusion criteria included males and females aged 18 to 95 with a diagnosis of POD, treated with sarecycline with a documented follow-up. Results: Six patients met inclusion criteria, all of which had shown improvement with no reported side effects. Of the six patients, four were female and two were male and the patient ages ranged from 26 to 58 years old (mean=41 years). The course of therapy ranged from 30 to180 days (median=90 days). Conclusion: Based on the outcomes, there are many potential benefits to treatment of POD with sarecycline over the alternative tetracycline-class antibiotics. There is a need for more large-scale clinical studies evaluating treatment options for POD. Based on the efficacy and tolerability of sarecycline in large- scale acne studies, sarecycline may be an appropriate novel treatment option for POD and should be explored further.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38912196PMC11189645What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.