Role of Probiotics in Managing Acne Vulgaris: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials

Abstract

Background:

Dysregulation of the skin microbiome is implicated in acne pathogenesis.

Objective:

To evaluate the efficacy of probiotics in the management of acne.

Methods:

Searches were conducted in 3 databases through June 30, 2024. Clinical trials that compared probiotics with controls and investigated their efficacy in acne were included. Primary outcomes were standardized mean differences (SMDs) for the change from baseline to posttreatment in total lesion count (TLC), noninflammatory lesion count (NILC), and inflammatory lesion count (ILC). Secondary outcomes included Global Acne Grading System (GAGS) scores, Investigator’s Global Assessment, erythema, and sebum levels.

Results:

Thirteen studies comprising 18 study arms and 1453 participants were included. There were no significant reductions in TLC (SMD, −0.22; 95% confidence interval [CI]: −0.50 to 0.07; I² = 75%), NILC (SMD, −0.20; 95% CI: −0.48 to 0.08; I² = 72%), or ILC (SMD, −0.13; 95% CI: −0.34 to 0.09; I² = 52%) with probiotics compared with controls. However, oral probiotics were associated with a significant reduction in GAGS scores (SMD, −0.47; 95% CI: −0.81 to −0.13; I² = 67%) versus controls. Subgroup analyses indicated that this effect was most prominent in mild-to-moderate acne patients who received oral probiotics containing Lactobacillus species combined with other strains for a minimum of 12 weeks.

Conclusions:

Probiotics did not demonstrate a significant reduction in acne lesion counts. However, they were associated with improvements in acne severity as measured by GAGS scores. These findings should be interpreted with caution given the heterogeneity across studies and the fluctuating natural course of acne.

Keywords

probiotics acne Global Acne Grading System Investigators’ Global Assessment

Introduction

Acne vulgaris (AV) is a chronic inflammatory disorder of the pilosebaceous unit. Its pathogenesis involves follicular hyperkeratinization, hormonal effects on sebum, inflammation, and Propionibacterium acnes (subsequently Cutibacterium acnes [C. acnes]).¹ Previously, C. acnes was believed to be the sole microbial cause of acne, leading to the widespread use of antibiotics as a treatment. However, recent evidence indicates that various subtypes of C. acnes contribute to the development of acne.² Imbalances between C. acnes phylotypes or between C. acnes and other skin microbes, particularly Staphylococcus epidermidis (S. epidermidis), may trigger acne.² Additionally, gut microbiota also play a role via the gut-skin axis, where increased intestinal permeability allows microbial metabolites to affect the skin microbiome.³

A recent systematic review on the cutaneous microbiome in acne highlighted 3 main contributors: C. acnes, S. epidermidis, and reduced skin microbiome diversity.⁴ Given these insights, probiotics—administered alone or alongside standard therapies—have shown promise in acne management, though larger, high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are still needed.^5,6 Despite these findings, current treatment guidelines for AV do not include any recommendations regarding probiotics.^7
-10 An earlier systematic review summarized potential benefits but lacked a meta-analysis.⁵

We therefore conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of probiotics in managing AV.

Materials and Methods

Literature Search and Selection Criteria

This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with standardized procedures and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.^11,12 The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO, an international database for prospectively registered systematic reviews in health and social care (CRD42024580125). Relevant studies were searched in electronic databases including the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (via PubMed), and Scopus (via ELSEVIER), up to June 30, 2024, with English language. Search terms and strategies, primarily based on interventions, are detailed in Supplementary Data S1. Google scholar and citation searching were also searched to cover all grey literature.

Eligibility Criteria

Two authors (N.J. and C.U.) independently screened studies using predefined eligibility criteria. Studies were included if they were clinical trials (randomized or non-randomized) involving participants with AV aged >7 years and compared oral or topical probiotics for ≥1 week against placebo or active controls. The 1 week treatment threshold was chosen as the shortest period likely to yield measurable probiotic benefits.¹³ Primary outcomes included objective measures—total lesion count (TLC), noninflammatory lesion count (NILC), and inflammatory lesion count (ILC). Secondary outcomes included subjective assessments such as Global Acne Grading System (GAGS), proportion of patients achieving Investigators’ Global Assessment (IGA) scores of 0 or 1, erythema, and sebum production. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus with a third author (S.C.). Exclusion criteria were nonhuman studies, studies on postbiotics, studies on skin diseases other than AV, and single-arm studies. For duplicate reports, the most recent and largest sample size was used.

Data Extraction

Two authors (N.J. and C.U.) independently extracted key data from each clinical trial, including first author, sample size, country, year, study design, patient characteristics, acne severity, site, mean age, probiotic dosage and form, treatment duration, control type, specified outcomes, and conflicts of interest. Two reviewers then independently evaluated full texts of potentially eligible studies, resolving disagreements by consensus.

TLC data were extracted, with noninflammatory lesions defined as comedones and inflammatory lesions as papules, pustules, or nodules. Reductions in TLC, NILC, and ILC before and after treatment were recorded for both the probiotic and control groups. Acne severity was assessed using GAGS and IGA.^14,15 For IGA, the proportion of patients achieving scores of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear) was used as the primary success outcome. Data on erythema and sebum levels were also extracted for pooled analysis.

Quality Assessment

Two authors conducted the quality assessments independently and reached a consensus with the third author in case of any disagreements. The quality of individual RCTs was evaluated with the version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias (ROB) tool for randomized trials (RoB 2).^16,17 The Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool was used for assessing the ROB in non-randomized studies of interventions.¹⁸

Data Analysis

Standardized mean differences (SMD) were calculated to compare pretreatment and posttreatment effects between the probiotic and control groups for outcomes including reductions in TLC, NILC, ILC, GAGS scores, erythema, and sebum production. Dichotomous outcomes were expressed as relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the proportion of patients achieving IGA scores of 0 or 1. A random-effects model was applied when heterogeneity was present; otherwise, a fixed-effects model was used. Effect sizes and 95% CIs were derived using the inverse variance method. Heterogeneity was assessed with Cochran’s Q test and Higgins’ I² statistic, defined as significant when P < .1 or I² ≥ 50%.^19,20

Subgroup analyses were performed by acne severity, probiotic form, treatment duration, use as monotherapy or combination, probiotic type, control type, trial design, and geographic location. Sensitivity analyses assessed robustness by excluding studies with high ROB or small-study effects, using leave-one-out cross-validation. Publication bias was evaluated by funnel plot and Egger’s test. All analyses were conducted using SPSS 29.0.2.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) and Review Manager (RevMan 5.4.1; The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark).^21,22

Results

After removing duplicate records, a total of 222 studies remained. A screening of the abstracts and titles resulted in the inclusion of 17 studies. After evaluating the full texts, 5 studies were excluded,^23
-27 leaving 12 eligible studies. Additionally, 1 study was identified via Google Scholar,²⁸ bringing the total number of included studies to 13. Among these, 11 RCTs and 2 were non-RCTs, comprising a total of 18 study arms^28
-40 (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

PRISMA 2020 flow diagram for new systematic reviews, which included searches of databases, registers and other sources. PRISMA, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.

Characteristics of Included Studies

Among the 13 studies, a total of 1453 participants were enrolled, studies assessed the efficacy of oral probiotics with 500 participants and 3 studies with 269 participants receiving topical probiotics. The characteristics of the included studies are summarized in Table 1. The studies predominantly involved patients diagnosed with mild-to-moderate AV, except for 1 study that included patients with severe AV.³⁵

Table 1.

Characteristics of the Included Studies With Oral and Topical Probiotic Treatment of Acne Vulgaris.

No	Author (y)	Country	Register number	Type of study	Type of patients	Location	n (I/C)	Percentage of female (I/C)	Mean age (I/C)	Type (dose in CFU) of probiotics	Type of control and dose	Duration (wk)	COI
Oral probiotics
1	Eguren (2024)	Spain	NCT04570319	RCT	Mild AV according to AGSS	Face and extrafacial lesion	42/39	76.19/61.54	20.13/18.03	Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus CECT 30031, Arthrospira platensis BEA_IDA_0074B (1 × 10⁹)	Placebo	12	Yes^a
2	Liang (2024)	China	ChiCTR2200063499	RCT (open label)	20-50 TLC achieved grades III (pustules)-IV (nodules, cysts) of the Chinese Acne Treatment Guidelines with >10 ILCs	Face	30/30	57.1/51.4	21.72/22.68	L. plantarum MH-301 (2 × 10⁹)	Isotretinoin	12	No
2	Liang (2024)	China	ChiCTR2200063499	RCT (open label)		Face	30/30	60/51.4	22.44/22.68	L. plantarum MH-301 (2 × 10⁹) and isotretinoin	Isotretinoin	12	No
3	Rybak (2023)	USA	NCT03605108	Prospective placebo-controlled (self-control)	Non-cystic acne	Face	7/7	NA	30.8	B. licheniformis, B. indicus, B. subtilis, B. clausii, and B. coagulans (2 × 10⁹)	Placebo	4	Yes^b
4	Irshad (2023)	Pakistan	NCT05629468	Quasi-experimental study	Mild-to-moderate AV	NA	25/25	NA	23 ± 5	L. acidophilus, L. rhamnosus, B. lactis, and B. bifidum (8 × 10⁹) + azithromycin 250 mg/d EOD + topical 4% BP	Azithromycin 250 mg EOD + topical 4% BP	12	No
4	Irshad (2023)	Pakistan	NCT05629468	Quasi-experimental study	Mild-to-moderate AV	NA	25/25	NA	23 ± 5	L. acidophilus, L. rhamnosus, B. lactis, and B. bifidum (8 × 10⁹) + topical 4% BP	Azithromycin 250 mg EOD + topical 4% BP	12	No
5	Rocha (2023)	Brazil	CAAE: 03728318.5.0000.5514	RCT	Mild-to-moderate AV according to IGA	Face	107/105	61.7/60.9	17	L. acidophilus NCFM (1 × 10⁹), B. lactis HN019 (1 × 10⁹), vitamins, and minerals with first 90 d of topical 0.1% adapalene and topical 2.5% BP	Placebo with first 90 d of topical 0.1% adapalene and topical 2.5% BP	26	Yes^c
6	Rinaldi (2022)	Italy	Ethical Committee for Clinical Investigation of Genoa, Italy	RCT	Mild-to-moderate AV according to GAGS	Face and back	30/29	47/48	23.5/23.4	B. breve BR03 DSM 16604 (0.5 × 10⁹), Lacticaseibacillus casei LC03 DSM 27537 (0.5 × 10⁹), Ligilactobacillus salivarius LS03 DSM 22776 (1 × 10⁹) + botanical extract (lupeol from Solanum melongena L. and Echinacea extract)	Botanical extract (lupeol from S. melongena L. and Echinacea extract)	8	Yes^d
6	Rinaldi (2022)	Italy		RCT	Mild-to-moderate AV according to GAGS	Face and back	27/28	52/43	23.4/23.7	B. breve BR03 DSM 16604 (0.5 × 10⁹), L. casei LC03 DSM 27537 (0.5 × 10⁹), L. salivarius LS03 DSM 22776 (1 × 10⁹)	Placebo	8	Yes^d
7	Kim (2021)	Korea	KCT0005401	RCT	Mild-to-moderate AV according to IGA	Face	14/14	50/64.2	24.29/23.86	L. plantarum CJLP55 (10 × 10⁹)	Placebo	12	Yes^e
8	Tolino (2018)	Italy	NA	RCT	Mild-to-moderate AV according to GAGS	Face and back	60/60	100/100	25	L. acidophilus SGL11, L. casei SGL15, L. plantarum SGL07, S. thermophilus SGSt01 + topical SA	Placebo + topical salicylic acid	12	No
8	Tolino (2018)	Italy	NA	RCT	Mild-to-moderate AV according to GAGS	Face and back	60/60	0/0	25	L. acidophilus SGL11, L. casei SGL15, L. plantarum SGL07, S. thermophilus SGSt01 + topical SA	Placebo + topical salicylic acid	12	No
9	Kitkuakosol (2018)	Thailand	No. 005/60	RCT	Mild to moderate	Face	13/12	100/100	29.2/27.8	Actobacillus acidophilus, L. casei, B. longum, B. infantis, B. bifidum, L. lactis (100 × 10⁹), Oligosaccharide (prebiotics) + 2.5% BP and 1% clindamycin lotion	Placebo + 2.5% BP and 1% clindamycin lotion	12	NA
10	Jung (2013)	Canada	Health Research Ethics Board	RCT (open label)	Mild-to-moderate according to Global Acne Assessment Scale	Face	15/15	100/100	NA	L. acidophilus (5 × 10⁹), L. bulgaricus (5 × 10⁹), B. bifidum (20 × 10⁹) bid	Minocycline	12	No
10	Jung (2013)	Canada	Health Research Ethics Board	RCT (open label)	Mild-to-moderate according to Global Acne Assessment Scale	Face	15/15	100/100	NA	L. acidophilus (5 × 10⁹), L. bulgaricus (5 × 10⁹), B. bifidum (20 × 10⁹) bid + minocycline	Minocycline	12	No
Topical probiotics
11	Craft (2022)	USA	NCT02832063	RCT (phase IIb/III)	Mild-to-moderate AV with IGA	Face	181/179	52.5/51.4	NA	Nitrosomonas eutropha B244 (4 × 10⁹ cells/mL and 4 pumps of spray to saturate the entire face applied bid)	Placebo	12	NA
12	Sathikulpakdee (2022)	Thailand	SWUEC-339/2562F	RCT	Mild-to-moderate of Leeds-revised criteria	Face	52/52	76.9/80.8	22.2/22.0	L. paracasei MSMC 39-1	2.5% BP	4	No
13	Lebeer (2022)	Belgium	NCT04216160	RCT (open label)	Mild to moderate	Face	36/31	60/64.1	17/18	L. rhamnosus GG, L. plantarum WCFS1, L. pentosus KCA1 (1 g)	Placebo	8	Yes^f

Abbreviations: AGSS, Acne Global Severity Scale; AV, acne vulgaris; B. bifidum, Bifidobacterium bifidum; B. breve, Bifidobacterium breve; B. clausii, Bacillus clausii; B. coagulans, Bacillus coagulans; B. indicus, Bacillus indicus; B. infantis, Bifidobacterium infantis; B. lactis, Bifidobacterium lactis; B. licheniformis, Bacillus licheniformis; B. longum, Bifidobacterium longum; BP, benzoyl peroxide; B. subtilis, Bacillus subtilis; COI, conflict of interests; EOD, every-other day; GAGS, Global Acne Grading System; I/C, intervention/control; IGA, Investigator’s Global Assessment; ILC, inflammatory lesion counts; L. acidophilus, Lactobacillus acidophilus; L. bulgaricus, Lactobacillus bulgaricus; L. casei, Lacticaseibacillus casei; L. lactis, Lactococcus lactis; L. paracasei, Lacticaseibacillus paracasei; L. pentosus, Lacticaseibacillus pentosus; L. plantarum, Lacticaseibacillus plantarum; L. rhamnosus, Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus; L. salivarius, Ligilactobacillus salivarius; NA, not available; RCT, randomized controlled trial; SA, salicylic acid; S. melongena, Solanum melongena; TLC, total lesion counts.

EN-D, PS-P, and VN-L are employees of Bioithas (a sister company of Bionou Research) and VN-L owns stock/stock options.

R.K.S. serves as a scientific adviser for LearnHealth, Arbonne, and Codex Labs and as a consultant to Burt’s Bees, Novozymes, Nutrafol, Abbvie, Sanofi, Fotona, Incyte, Leo, UCB, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Biogena, Lilly, Sun, and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. J.M. serves as a consultant to Codex Labs. J.M. serves as a consultant for Codex Labs.

The authors of the study act as speakers for the laboratory that financed the study—FARMOQUIMICA SA, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

Fabio Rinaldi serve as a consultant for Giuliani S.p.A., Daniela Pinto, Laura Marotta, and Antonio Mascolo are employed by Giuliani S.p.A., Giammaria Giuliani is in the Board of Directors of Giuliani S.p.A., Marco Pane and Angela Amoruso have nothing to disclose.

Hyun Sun Yun, Hee Yoon Ahn, and Ji Young Oh are employed by CJ Fooads R&D Center, CJ CheilJedang Corporation. L. plantarum CJLP55 (KCTC 11401BP, GenBank accession number GQ336971) was provided by CJ Foods R&D Center, CJ CheilJedang Corporation (Suwon, Republic of Korea). Other authors declare that there are no potential conflicts of interests with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

YUN NV (www.yun.be) was funded as a biotech company focusing on probiotics for the skin after the scientific studies mentioned in this paper. I.C. and T.H. were employed at the University of Antwerp at the time of the study but are currently working at the R&D Department of YUN (www.yun.be). I.C. is now Chief Scientific Officer of YUN NV. T.H. is R&D manager of YUN NV. S.L. and J.L. are members of the Scientific Advisory Board of YUN NV. I.C., T.H., and S.L. are minority stakeholders of YUN. The PhD research of L.D. is currently funded by VLAIO through a Baekeland mandate in collaboration with YUN NV. Based on the data presented here, YUN NV has selected and formulated 3 Lactobacillus strains: L. pentosus YUN-V1.0, L. plantarum YUN-V2.0, and L. rhamnosus YUN-S1.0 in their commercial ACN product. Patents related to this work include dermatological preparations for maintaining and/or restoring healthy skin microbiota (WO2017220525A1) and preservation of microorganisms (WO2018002248). The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

The probiotic spp. utilized in the studies included Lactobacillus spp. (n = 4), a combination of Lactobacillus, Bifidobacterium spp., and other spp. (n = 7), Bacillus spp. (n = 1), and Nitrosomonas eutropha (N. eutropha; n = 1), as detailed in Supplementary Table S1. The dosage of oral probiotics ranged from 0.5 × 10⁹ to 100 × 10⁹ CFU. The topical probiotics consisted of Lactobacillus spp. and N. eutropha.

The control groups across 18 study arms comprised placebo (n = 6), topical agents (n = 6), and oral agents (n = 6). The majority of the topical agents were standard acne medications, including clindamycin, benzoyl peroxide, salicylic acid, and adapalene. The oral agents included azithromycin, minocycline, and isotretinoin.

Quality of Included Studies

ROB assessment by RoB 2 for RCT and ROBINS-I for non-RCT are shown in Supplementary Tables S2 and S3, respectively.

Total Lesion Count

When comparing the SMD in the reduction of TLC before and after treatment, probiotics did not show a significant difference compared with the control group, with an SMD of −0.22 (95% CI: −0.50 to 0.07; I² = 75%), as illustrated in Figure 2a.

Figure 2.

Reduction in acne vulgaris lesion. (a) Total lesion count. (b) Noninflammatory lesion count. (c) Inflammatory lesion count.

A subgroup analysis of study arms involving participants with non-severe AV revealed a significant reduction in TLC, with SMD of −0.25 (95% CI: −0.47 to −0.02; I² = 55%). Further subgroup analysis indicated that study arms utilizing probiotics alone achieved a significant reduction in TLC, with SMD of −0.36 (95% CI: −0.65 to −0.07; I² = 71%; Supplementary Table S4).

Noninflammatory Lesion Count

Regarding the reduction in NILC before and after treatment, there was no statistically significant difference between the probiotic and control groups, with an SMD of −0.20 (95% CI: −0.48 to 0.08; I² = 72%), as illustrated in Figure 2b.

A subgroup analysis of study arms involving participants with non-severe AV revealed a significant reduction in NILC, with SMD of −0.32 (95% CI: −0.58 to −0.06; I² = 563%). A subgroup analysis of study arms that utilized combined types of probiotics revealed a significant reduction in NILC, with SMD of −0.65 (95% CI: −1.21 to −0.10; I² = 76%). Additionally, a subgroup analysis based on the geographical location of the study indicated that studies conducted in Asia reported a significant reduction in NILC, with SMD of −0.29 (95% CI: −0.57 to −0.00; I² = 68%).

Inflammatory Lesion Count

There was no statistically significant difference in the reduction of ILC between the probiotic and control groups, with an SMD of −0.13 (95% CI: −0.34 to 0.09; I² = 52%), as illustrated in Figure 2c.

Global Acne Grading System

In all included studies, specifically RCTs where GAGS was reported as an outcome, probiotics were administered in oral form to patients with non-severe AV. When comparing the change in GAGS scores from pretreatment to posttreatment, probiotics were associated with a significantly greater reduction compared with the control group, with an SMD of −0.47 (95% CI: −0.81 to −0.13; I² = 67%), as illustrated in Figure 3a.

Figure 3.

Reduction in severity of acne vulgaris. (a) GAGS. (b) IGA scores. GAGS, Global Acne Grading System; IGA, Investigators’ Global Assessment.

In subgroup analyses, study arms with treatment durations of 12 weeks or longer exhibited a significant reduction in GAGS scores, with an SMD of −0.62 (95% CI: −1.06 to −0.18; I² = 73%). Subgroup analyses of study arms utilizing probiotics alone also demonstrated a significant reduction in GAGS scores, with an SMD of −0.53 (95% CI: −0.91 to −0.15; I² = 69%). Additionally, subgroup analysis of study arms comparing probiotics to an active control indicated a significant reduction in GAGS scores, with an SMD of −0.64 (95% CI: −1.06 to −0.23; I² = 67%; Supplementary Table S4).

Investigators’ Global Assessment

When comparing the proportion of patients achieving an IGA score of 0 or 1, probiotics did not show a statistically significant difference compared with placebo, with a RR of 1.65 (95% CI: 0.48-5.62; I² = 89%), as depicted in Figure 3b.

Subgroup analyses indicated that study arms employing topical probiotics achieved a significant reduction in the IGA score to 0 or 1, with RR of 2.06 (95% CI: 1.07-3.97). Further subgroup analysis of study arms compared with placebo demonstrated a significant reduction on the IGA scale to 0 or 1, with RR of 2.15 (95% CI: 1.13-4.08; Supplementary Table S5).

Erythema

When evaluating the reduction in erythema based on SMD before and after treatment, there was no statistically significant difference between probiotics and the control, with an SMD of −0.17 (95% CI: −0.42 to 0.08; I² = 0%), as illustrated in Figure 4a.

Figure 4.

Reduction in other outcomes. (a) Erythema. (b) Skin sebum production.

Sebum Production

Upon comparing the reduction in sebum secretion through SMD from pretreatment to posttreatment, there was no statistically significant difference between probiotics and the control, with SMD of −28.34 (95% CI: −57.28 to 0.60; I² = 0%). This is depicted in Figure 4b.

Publication Bias

Funnel plots were generated to assess publication bias in outcomes, as shown in Supplementary Figure S1. Using funnel plots, there is no evidence of asymmetry in the interesting outcomes. Egger’s test indicated no significant publication bias, with P values of .255 for TLC, .240 for ILC, .188 for NILC, .050 for GAGS, .434 for IGA, and .640 for erythema.

Sensitivity Analyses

Sensitivity analyses were conducted by excluding studies with a high ROB and performing leave-one-out cross-validation by removing studies showing small-study effects (Supplementary Table S6). When the study with high ROB was excluded from the outcomes of TLC,^30,33,37 NILC,^33,37 ILC,^33,37 GAGS,³⁶ IGA,³³ no significant differences were observed across these outcomes except IGA with RR of 2.18 (95% CI: 1.15-4.12, I² = 0%).

In the leave-one-out cross-validation analysis, excluding a study with a high effect size and high variance from the funnel plots for outcomes of TLC,³⁵ NILC,³⁵ ILC,³⁸ GAGS,³⁴ IGA,³³ erythema index,²⁸ showed the robust effect in TLC (SMD −0.29, 95% CI: −0.52 to −0.07, I² = 58%), NILC (SMD −0.28, 95% CI: −0.52 to −0.03, I² = 61%), GAGS (SMD −0.52, 95% CI: −0.91 to −0.13, I² = 71%) and IGA reduction (RR 2.18, 95% CI: 1.15-4.12, I² = 0%) which favoured the probiotics arm.

Discussion

To our best knowledge, this is the first meta-analysis assessing both oral and topical probiotics in AV, which included current evidence. We also analyzed different outcomes assessment of both objective and subjective measurements. Our review suggested that oral probiotics significantly reduce the severity of AV, as assessed by GAGS, yielding SMD of −0.47 compared with the control. This effect is particularly pronounced in patients with mild-to-moderate acne who received oral probiotics for 12 weeks or longer. Although neither oral nor topical probiotics demonstrated a significant reduction in lesion count, the reported outcomes tended to favour the probiotics group.

An imbalance in the skin microbiome significantly impacts skin homeostasis, leading to dysbiosis and various skin conditions including acne. Current acne treatments can cause adverse effects that some patients find intolerable. Recently, pharmaceuticals, like probiotics, are gaining attention as alternative nonantibiotic treatments that can modulate dysbiosis and lower the risk of antimicrobial resistance.⁴¹ Furthermore, it may enhance skin hydration, potentially alleviating irritation from topical acne treatments.³¹

A previous systematic review presented a summary of individual studies and identified the potential roles of oral and topical probiotics in reducing lesion count, improving clinical assessments, modulating the skin microbiome, and positively influencing skin parameters.⁵ Although direct comparisons with our meta-analysis are challenging due to differences in inclusion and exclusion criteria, our findings support a similar positive effect of probiotics on acne treatment. Specifically, probiotics were associated with a reduction in severity, particularly as measured by GAGS, with robust evidence of a statistically significant SMD compared with that in placebo. However, the most recent RCT evaluating the efficacy of oral probiotics compared oral doxycycline alone with oral doxycycline combined with probiotics containing 7 strains found no significant difference in GAGS scores between the 2 groups. Nevertheless, the combination therapy resulted in a greater reduction in acne severity, as assessed by the Global Acne Assessment Scale.⁴²

Our study found that probiotic supplementation significantly reduced GAGS scores, with the greatest effect in patients with mild-to-moderate AV. Benefits were most evident in those receiving oral probiotics—particularly Lactobacillus spp. combined with other strains—for ≥12 weeks. The observed benefits in specific groups can be explained by several factors. In severe acne, probiotics alone may be insufficient to counter marked inflammation, which often requires systemic therapy such as isotretinoin, and microbiome modification may take longer to yield effects.²⁴ These factors may help explain the positive outcomes observed in the subgroup with mild-to-moderate AV. It is important to note that this meta-analysis included only 1 study with participants suffering from severe acne.³⁵ From subgroup analysis, probiotics also significantly reduced lesion counts in non-severe acne, with SMDs of −0.25 for TLC and −0.32 for NILC.

In the subgroup receiving oral probiotics, these supplements appear to exert systemic effects by modulating the gut-skin axis rather than by merely acting locally on the skin.^3,43 An imbalanced gut microbiome can lead to intestinal permeability issues, contributing to systemic inflammation and acne flares.^43,44 Probiotics potentially improve gut barrier function and modulate systemic immune responses.^38,45,46 In a murine model, supplements containing various Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium strains have been shown to induce B and T cell hyporesponsiveness and downregulate T helper cell activity including T helper 1 and T helper 17 cells, which play a role in the inflammatory cascade associated with acne.^1,47 Probiotics may also have indirect influences on acne through body mass index reduction and psychological well-being enhancement.^43,48
-50

Regarding the group using a combination of Lactobacillus spp. and other probiotic strains, multiple species may enhance effectiveness by targeting diverse pathways in acne pathogenesis (Figure 5). Probiotics from the Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium genera can modulate key mechanisms, including reducing pro-inflammatory cytokines such as IL-1α, which drives follicular hyperkeratinization and comedogenesis; blocking IL-1α has been linked to lower lesion counts and reduced anxiety.^51,52 Bifidobacterium lactis and certain Lactobacillus spp. can regulate sebum production by lowering insulin-like growth factor-1, increasing glucagon-like peptide-1, and improving insulin sensitivity, thereby limiting sebocyte proliferation. Lactobacillus rhamnosus also upregulates Forkhead Box O1, reducing lipogenesis and inflammation.^3,53
-56 Certain microorganisms, such as Staphylococcus capitis and S. epidermidis, produce antimicrobial substances that suppress C. acnes growth.^57,58 Additionally, Streptococcus salivarius produces BLIS-like compounds, and enterocins from Enterococcus faecalis show antimicrobial activity against C. acnes, both associated with reduced inflammatory lesions.^59,60 Additionally, Lactobacillus spp. may suppress lipase activity, limiting nutrients available to C. acnes.^39,61

Figure 5.

Probiotics targeting various mechanisms of acne pathogenesis. Acne pathogenesis is primarily driven by 4 key mechanisms: follicular hyperkeratinization, hormonal influences on sebum production, inflammatory processes, and the colonization and activities of C. acnes. Certain probiotics, particularly those from the Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium genera, exhibit various mechanisms to counteract acne pathogenesis. These probiotics can mitigate gut dysbiosis, which, if left unaddressed, increases intestinal permeability, leading to endotoxemia. Endotoxemia triggers inflammation and insulin resistance, thereby contributing to acne development. Probiotics can also downregulate T helper 1 and T helper 17 cells, which play a role in the inflammatory cascade associated with acne. Additionally, they may reduce levels of IL-1α, a cytokine that is crucial in the hyperkeratinization of the infundibular portion of the pilosebaceous unit, thereby contributing to comedogenesis. Bifidobacterium species specifically can decrease insulin resistance, which is linked to the hyperproliferation of sebocytes. Lactobacillus species can utilize IGF-1, which is associated with enhanced DHT response, consequently promoting lipogenesis in the sebaceous glands. Furthermore, many probiotics have the ability to inhibit the growth of C. acnes. Lactobacilli spp. might inhibit lipase activity, an enzyme that provides nutrition to C. acnes. Beyond these direct mechanisms, probiotics can also alleviate anxiety and depression, both of which are recognized triggers for acne. DHT, dihydrotestosterone; IGF-1, insulin-like growth factor-1; IL-1α, interleukin-1α.

For treatment durations ≥12 weeks, all studies in our meta-analysis reporting GAGS showed greater improvement with longer interventions.^29,34,36 We hypothesize that extending treatment beyond 12 weeks could provide additional benefits for acne management. However, interpretation should be cautious due to the variable, individualized nature of the hair follicle cycle. Serial video imaging has shown spontaneous changes in inflammatory lesions over just 4 days without treatment,⁶² contributing to high placebo response rates—also observed in other follicular disorders like hidradenitis suppurativa.⁶³ Well-designed RCTs incorporating active placebos are essential to validate treatment efficacy and reduce the risk of misinterpretation.

To the best of our knowledge, this study represents the first meta-analysis to examine the effects of probiotics in the management of AV. A key strength of our analysis lies in its comprehensive inclusion of both topical and oral probiotics, complemented by a predefined subgroup analysis.

Limitations in this study include the small number of studies, high heterogeneity from varied probiotic strains and baseline characteristics, and persistent variability despite subgroup analyses. The GAGS may underestimate disease severity in patients with high lesion counts or localized but extensive involvement, as regional grading is based solely on the most severe lesion type. Lastly, although GAGS reduction was statistically significant, the effect size was small. Larger double-blind RCTs of specific probiotic types with extended treatment periods are warranted.

Conclusion

Probiotics did not demonstrate a significant reduction in acne lesion counts. However, oral probiotics have been shown to reduce the severity of AV, as measured by the GAGS. They may serve as a therapeutic option for the management of mild-to-moderate AV, particularly when administered for at least 12 weeks.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-cms-10.1177_12034754261445880 – Supplemental material for Role of Probiotics in Managing Acne Vulgaris: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-cms-10.1177_12034754261445880 for Role of Probiotics in Managing Acne Vulgaris: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials by Narachai Julanon, Chanita Unhapipatpong, Rachot Wongjirattikarn, Thanaphon Anutraungkool, Suteeraporn Chaowattanapanit, Charoen Choonhakarn, Kittisak Sawanyawisuth, Prapimporn Chattranukulchai Shantavasinkul, Christos C. Zouboulis and Vincent Piguet in Journal of Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We would like to express our sincere gratitude for the statistical advice provided by Assistant Professor Jen Sothornwit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Srinagarind Hospital, Khon Kaen University, Thailand, and Ms Sukanya Siriyotha, Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.

ORCID iDs

Narachai Julanon

Chanita Unhapipatpong

Rachot Wongjirattikarn

Thanaphon Anutraungkool

Suteeraporn Chaowattanapanit

Charoen Choonhakarn

Kittisak Sawanyawisuth

Prapimporn Chattranukulchai Shantavasinkul

Ethical Considerations

Registry and registry number for systematic reviews or meta-analyses: CRD42024580125.

Author Contributions

N.J., C.U., P.C.S., and V.P.: concept and design. N.J., C.U., R.W., T.A., S.C., C.C., K.S., P.C.S., and C.C.Z.: acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data. N.J. and C.U.: writing—original draft preparation. N.J., C.U., and K.S.: statistical analysis. All authors: critical review of the manuscript for important intellectual content and final approval of the version to be published.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Dr Christos C. Zouboulis has received honoraria as a consultant for AccureAcne, Almirall, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, CLS Behring, Eli Lilly and Company, Estée Lauder, Idorsia, Incyte, L’Oréal, MSD, NAOS-BIODERMA, Novartis, PPM, Sanofi, ShiRhom, Takeda, UCB, and ZuraBio, and lecture honoraria from Almirall, Amgen, NAOS-BIODERMA, Biogen, BMS, L’Oréal, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. His departments have received grants from his participation as a clinical and research investigator for AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, EADV, European Union, German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, GSK, Incyte, InflaRx, MSD, Novartis, Relaxera, Sanofi, and UCB. He is president of the EHSF e.V., president of the Deutsches Register Morbus Adamantiades-Behçet e.V., board member of the International Society for Behçet’s Disease, coordinator of the ALLOCATE Skin group of the ERN Skin, and chair of the ARHS Task Force group of the EADV. He is editor of the EADV News and co-copyright holder of IHS4 on behalf of the EHSF e.V. Dr Vincent Piguet has received grants from AbbVie, Bausch Health, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Janssen, LEO Pharma, L’Oréal, Novartis, Organon, Pfizer, Sandoz, and Sanofi; received payment or honoraria for speaking engagement from Sanofi; participated on an advisory board for LEO Pharma, Novartis, Sanofi, Union Therapeutics, Abbvie, and UCB; and received equipment donation from L’Oréal. The other authors declare no conflict of interest.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Kim

YH.

Exploring acne treatments: from pathophysiological mechanisms to emerging therapies. Int J Mol Sci. 2024;25(10):5302. doi:10.3390/ijms25105302

Dreno

Dekio

Baldwin

, et al. Acne microbiome: from phyla to phylotypes. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2024;38(4):657-664. doi:10.1111/jdv.19540

Sánchez-Pellicer

Navarro-Moratalla

Núñez-Delegido

Ruzafa-Costas

Agüera-Santos

Navarro-López

Acne, microbiome, and probiotics: the gut-skin axis. Microorganisms. 2022;10(7):1303. doi:10.3390/microorganisms10071303

Podwojniak

Tan

Sauer

, et al. Acne and the cutaneous microbiome: a systematic review of mechanisms and implications for treatments. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2025;39(4):793-805. doi:10.1111/jdv.20332

Boby

Lee

Natarelli

Correa

Using probiotics to treat acne vulgaris: systematic review. Arch Dermatol Res. 2024;316(4):101. doi:10.1007/s00403-024-02836-1

Shields

Wafae

, et al. Safety and effectiveness of oral nutraceuticals for treating acne: a systematic review. JAMA Dermatol. 2023;159(12):1373-1382. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2023.3949

Reynolds

Yeung

Cheng

, et al. Guidelines of care for the management of acne vulgaris. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2024;90(5):1006.e1-1006.e30. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2023.12.017

Nast

Dréno

Bettoli

, et al. European evidence-based (S3) guideline for the treatment of acne—update 2016—short version. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2016;30(8):1261-1268. doi:10.1111/jdv.13776

Hayashi

Akamatsu

Iwatsuki

, et al. Japanese Dermatological Association guidelines: guidelines for the treatment of acne vulgaris 2017. J Dermatol. 2018;45(8):898-935. doi:10.1111/1346-8138.14355

10.

Asai

Baibergenova

Dutil

, et al. Management of acne: Canadian clinical practice guideline. CMAJ. 2016;188(2):118-126. doi:10.1503/cmaj.140665

11.

Ioannidis

JPA

. Integration of evidence from multiple meta-analyses: a primer on umbrella reviews, treatment networks and multiple treatments meta-analyses. CMAJ. 2009;181(8):488-493. doi:10.1503/cmaj.081086

12.

Aromataris

Fernandez

Godfrey

Holly

Khalil

Tungpunkom

Summarizing systematic reviews: methodological development, conduct and reporting of an umbrella review approach. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015;13(3):132-140. doi:10.1097/XEB.0000000000000055

13.

Ritchie

Romanuk

TN.

A meta-analysis of probiotic efficacy for gastrointestinal diseases. PLoS One. 2012;7(4):e34938. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0034938

14.

Doshi

Zaheer

Stiller

MJ.

A comparison of current acne grading systems and proposal of a novel system. Int J Dermatol. 1997;36(6):416-418. doi:10.1046/j.1365-4362.1997.00099.x

15.

Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Acne vulgaris: establishing effectiveness of drugs intended for treatment. 2020. Accessed January 18, 2025. https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/acne-vulgaris-establishing-effectiveness-drugs-intended-treatment

16.

Shea

Reeves

Wells

, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ. 2017;358:j4008. doi:10.1136/bmj.j4008

17.

Higgins

JPT

Altman

Gøtzsche

, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d5928. doi:10.1136/bmj.d5928

18.

Cochrane. Chapter 25. Assessing risk of bias in a non-randomized study. Accessed January 16, 2025. https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/chapter-25

19.

Chang

Phillips

Guymer

, et al. Correction. The 5 min meta-analysis: understanding how to read and interpret a forest plot. Eye. 2023;37(17):3704. doi:10.1038/s41433-023-02493-0

20.

Higgins

JPT

Thompson

Deeks

Altman

. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327(7414):557-560. doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557

21.

IBM Corp. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows. Version 29.0.2.0 [computer software]. Armonk (NY): IBM Corp.; 2023.

22.

The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager (RevMan) [computer software]. Version 5.4. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration; 2020.

23.

Manzhalii

Hornuss

Stremmel

Intestinal-borne dermatoses significantly improved by oral application of Escherichia coli Nissle 1917. World J Gastroenterol. 2016;22(23):5415-5421. doi:10.3748/wjg.v22.i23.5415

24.

Han

Shin

Choi

, et al. A split face study on the effect of an anti-acne product containing fermentation products of Enterococcus faecalis CBT SL-5 on skin microbiome modification and acne improvement. J Microbiol. 2022;60(5):488-495. doi:10.1007/s12275-022-1520-6

25.

Chen

, et al. Novel application of a co-fermented postbiotics of TYCA06/AP-32/CP-9/collagen in the improvement of acne vulgaris—a randomized clinical study of efficacy evaluation. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2022;21(11):6249-6260. doi:10.1111/jocd.15228

26.

Stuttgen

Therapy of acne with

Saccaromyces boulardii. Aktuelle Derm. 1991;17(7):206-209.

27.

Weber

Adamczyk

Freytag

[Treatment of acne with a yeast preparation]. Fortschr Med. 1989;107(26):563-566.

28.

Kitkuakosol

Khunngam

. The effectiveness of probiotic in the treatment of inflamed acne. 2019. Accessed December 31, 2024. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-Effectiveness-of-Probiotic-in-The-Treatment-of-Kitkuakosol-Khunngam/de52e2fdcfd9fb253aeb194fd7f4a35c20602e2a

29.

Eguren

Navarro-Blasco

Corral-Forteza

, et al. A randomized clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy of an oral probiotic in acne vulgaris. Acta Derm Venereol. 2024;104:adv33206. doi:10.2340/actadv.v104.33206

30.

Irshad

Syed

Shahid

Naeem

Mirza

Naeem

Comparative effects of azithromycin and probiotics for treatment of acne vulgaris. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2023;33(5):516-520. doi:10.29271/jcpsp.2023.05.516

31.

Kim

Choi

, et al. Effects of Lactobacillus plantarum CJLP55 on clinical improvement, skin condition and urine bacterial extracellular vesicles in patients with acne vulgaris: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Nutrients. 2021;13(4):1368. doi:10.3390/nu13041368

32.

Sathikulpakdee

Kanokrungsee

Vitheejongjaroen

Kamanamool

Udompataikul

Taweechotipatr

Efficacy of probiotic-derived lotion from Lactobacillus paracasei MSMC 39-1 in mild to moderate acne vulgaris, randomized controlled trial. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2022;21(10):5092-5097. doi:10.1111/jocd.14971

33.

Rocha

Schalka

Yoshizumi

THM

Bayan

Blum

VF.

Eficácia de probiótico oral associado à combinação fixa de peróxido de benzoíla e adapaleno no tratamento da acne: estudo clínico randomizado, duplo-cego, placebo-controlado. Surg Cosmet Dermatol. 2023;15:1-9. doi:10.5935/scd1984-8773.2023150225

34.

Rinaldi

Marotta

Mascolo

, et al. Facial acne: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study on the clinical efficacy of a symbiotic dietary supplement. Dermatol Ther. 2022;12(2):577-589. doi:10.1007/s13555-021-00664-z

35.

Liang

Jiang

Chen

Dong

Lactobacillus plantarum MH-301 as an effective adjuvant to isotretinoin in the treatment of acne vulgaris: a randomized and open-label trail. Front Med. 2023;10:1340068. doi:10.3389/fmed.2023.1340068

36.

Tolino

Skroza

Mambrin

, et al. Novel combination for the treatment of acne differentiated based on gender: a new step towards personalized treatment. G Ital Dermatol Venereol. 2018;153(6):866-871. doi:10.23736/S0392-0488.18.05710-3

37.

Rybak

Haas

Dhaliwal

, et al. Prospective placebo-controlled assessment of spore-based probiotic supplementation on sebum production, skin barrier function, and acne. J Clin Med. 2023;12(3):895. doi:10.3390/jcm12030895

38.

Jung

Tse

Guiha

Rao

Prospective, randomized, open-label trial comparing the safety, efficacy, and tolerability of an acne treatment regimen with and without a probiotic supplement and minocycline in subjects with mild to moderate acne. J Cutan Med Surg. 2013;17(2):114-122. doi:10.2310/7750.2012.12026

39.

Lebeer

Oerlemans

EFM

Claes

, et al. Selective targeting of skin pathobionts and inflammation with topically applied lactobacilli. Cell Rep Med. 2022;3(2):100521. doi:10.1016/j.xcrm.2022.100521

40.

ClinicalTrials.gov. Clinical trial in subjects with mild to moderate acne vulgaris. Bethesda (MD): U.S. National Library of Medicine. Accessed December 31, 2024. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT02832063?viewType=Card&id=NCT02832063&rank=1

41.

Dessinioti

Katsambas

The microbiome and acne: perspectives for treatment. Dermatol Ther. 2024;14(1):31-44. doi:10.1007/s13555-023-01079-8

42.

Atefi

Mohammadi

Bodaghabadi

, et al. Evaluating the effectiveness of probiotic supplementation in combination with doxycycline for the treatment of moderate acne: a randomized double-blind controlled clinical trial. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2025;24(1):e16614. doi:10.1111/jocd.16614

43.

Bowe

Logan

AC.

Acne vulgaris, probiotics and the gut-brain-skin axis—back to the future?. Gut Pathog. 2011;3(1):1. doi:10.1186/1757-4749-3-1

44.

Cani

Delzenne

NM.

Interplay between obesity and associated metabolic disorders: new insights into the gut microbiota. Curr Opin Pharmacol. 2009;9(6):737-743. doi:10.1016/j.coph.2009.06.016

45.

Colletti

Pellizzato

Cicero

AF.

The possible role of probiotic supplementation in inflammation: a narrative review. Microorganisms. 2023;11(9):2160. doi:10.3390/microorganisms11092160

46.

Cristofori

Dargenio

Miniello

Barone

Francavilla

Anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory effects of probiotics in gut inflammation: a door to the body. Front Immunol. 2021;12:578386. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2021.578386

47.

Kwon

Lee

, et al. Generation of regulatory dendritic cells and CD4+Foxp3+ T cells by probiotics administration suppresses immune disorders. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010;107(5):2159-2164. doi:10.1073/pnas.0904055107

48.

Heng

AHS

Chew

FT.

Systematic review of the epidemiology of acne vulgaris. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):5754. doi:10.1038/s41598-020-62715-3

49.

Perna

Ilyas

Giacosa

, et al. Is probiotic supplementation useful for the management of body weight and other anthropometric measures in adults affected by overweight and obesity with metabolic related diseases? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Nutrients. 2021;13(2):666. doi:10.3390/nu13020666

50.

Merkouris

Mavroudi

Miliotas

, et al. Probiotics’ effects in the treatment of anxiety and depression: a comprehensive review of 2014-2023 clinical trials. Microorganisms. 2024;12(2):411. doi:10.3390/microorganisms12020411

51.

Cazzola

Tompkins

Matera

MG.

Immunomodulatory impact of a synbiotic in T(h)1 and T(h)2 models of infection. Ther Adv Respir Dis. 2010;4(5):259-270. doi:10.1177/1753465810379009

52.

Carrasco

Stecher

Lefebvre

Logan

Moy

An open label, phase 2 study of MABp1 monotherapy for the treatment of acne vulgaris and psychiatric comorbidity. J Drugs Dermatol. 2015;14(6):560-564.

53.

Fabbrocini

Bertona

Picazo

Pareja-Galeano

Monfrecola

Emanuele

Supplementation with Lactobacillus rhamnosus SP1 normalises skin expression of genes implicated in insulin signalling and improves adult acne. Benef Microbes. 2016;7(5):625-630. doi:10.3920/BM2016.0089

54.

Zhang

Fang

Zhang

, et al. The effect of Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis MN-Gup on glucose metabolism, gut microbiota, and their metabolites in type 2 diabetic mice. Nutrients. 2024;16(11):1691. doi:10.3390/nu16111691

55.

Okoro

Camera

Flori

Ottaviani

Insulin and the sebaceous gland function. Front Physiol. 2023;14:1252972. doi:10.3389/fphys.2023.1252972

56.

Kang

Kim

Imm

Kim

SH.

The effects of dairy processes and storage on insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I) content in milk and in model IGF-I-fortified dairy products. J Dairy Sci. 2006;89(2):402-409. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(06)72104-X

57.

O’Neill

Nakatsuji

Hayachi

, et al. Identification of a human skin commensal bacterium that selectively kills Cutibacterium acnes. J Invest Dermatol. 2020;140(8):1619-1628.e2. doi:10.1016/j.jid.2019.12.026

58.

Marito

Keshari

Huang

CM.

PEG-8 Laurate fermentation of Staphylococcus epidermidis reduces the required dose of clindamycin against

Cutibacterium acnes. Int J Mol Sci. 2020;21(14):5103. doi:10.3390/ijms21145103

59.

Bowe

Filip

DiRienzo

Volgina

Margolis

DJ.

Inhibition of Propionibacterium acnes by bacteriocin-like inhibitory substances (BLIS) produced by Streptococcus salivarius. J Drugs Dermatol. 2006;5(9):868-870.

60.

Kang

Seo

Lee

, et al. Antimicrobial activity of enterocins from Enterococcus faecalis SL-5 against Propionibacterium acnes, the causative agent in acne vulgaris, and its therapeutic effect. J Microbiol. 2009;47(1):101-109. doi:10.1007/s12275-008-0179-y

61.

Kim

Lee

Kwon

AR.

The grease trap: uncovering the mechanism of the hydrophobic lid in Cutibacterium acnes lipase. J Lipid Res. 2020;61(5):722-733. doi:10.1194/jlr.RA119000279

62.

Zouboulis

Kollias

Acne lesions cycle. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2025;39(1):e29-e31. doi:10.1111/jdv.20061

63.

Zouboulis

Giamarellos-Bourboulis

Jemec

GBE

Katoulis

Prens

Tzellos

Significant spontaneous daily fluctuation of inflammatory nodules and abscesses but not of draining tunnels in hidradenitis suppurativa/acne inversa. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2024;38(8):e716-e718. doi:10.1111/jdv.19856

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.49 MB