MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411732855 · doi:10.1093/bjd/ljaf085.373

PA14 Spironolactone for the treatment of acne vulgaris affecting female patients aged 18 years and under: results from a UK and Irish survey

2025· article· en· W4411732855 on OpenAlexafffund
Lisa O’Higgins, Zahra Moledina, Myranda Attard, Grishma Ramesh, Fiona Sexton, Becky Dingle, Alison Layton, Jane Ravenscroft, Miriam Santer, Susannah George, Esther Burden‐Teh

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Dermatology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcne and Rosacea Treatments and Effects
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityUniversity Hospital Foundation
FundersQueen's UniversityVictoria UniversityKing's College LondonNottingham University Hospitals NHS TrustUniversity of NottinghamUniversity of SouthamptonUniversity of Sussex
KeywordsSpironolactoneIrishAcneMedicineDermatologyFamily medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Acne vulgaris (acne) is a common condition that causes psychological and social morbidity, with peak prevalence from 15 to 20 years (Layton AM, Ravenscroft J. Adolescent acne vulgaris: current and emerging treatments. Lancet Child Adolesc Health 2023; 7: 136–44). Spironolactone is effective for acne in adult women [Santer M, Lawrence M, Renz S et al. Effectiveness of spironolactone for women with acne vulgaris (SAFA) in England and Wales: pragmatic, multicentre, phase 3, double blind, randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2023; 381: e074349]. Our aim was to establish current practice of healthcare practitioners prescribing spironolactone for adult women and those aged < 18 years, and to determine safety concerns to inform a future clinical trial. A 39-question survey was sent to dermatology healthcare professionals through the UK Dermatology Clinical Trials Network (UKDCTN), the British Society for Paediatric and Adolescent Dermatologists (BSPAD), the Irish Association of Dermatologists (IAD) and regional groups. It was open for 6 weeks (December 2024 to January 2025). In total, 116 responses were received from doctors, nurses and pharmacists (82% from the UK and 18% from the Republic of Ireland). Of these, 66% had > 6 years of clinical experience treating skin conditions in patients aged ≤ 18 years. Of the 91% who had prescribed spironolactone for adult women nearly all found it effective (61% somewhat effective, 37% very effective). Prescribing uncertainties for adult patients include duration (48%), weaning and stopping (44%), monitoring requirements (28%) and dose (21%). Over one-third (n = 43, 37%) had prescribed spironolactone for female patients aged ≤ 18 years, almost exclusively for adolescents aged > 11 years (98%). Dosing, baseline blood tests, monitoring renal function, and uptitrating the dose varied. Nearly half (44%) prescribed 50 mg once daily, with most (72%) uptitrating the dose. Overall, 70% check baseline bloods and 60% monitor bloods. Advice provided regarding contraception varied. Safety concerns among those prescribing for patients aged < 18 years included teratogenicity. Of those prescribing for patients aged < 18 years, 5% described spironolactone as not at all effective, 59% slightly or moderately effective, and 14% very or extremely effective, while 5% were unsure. Side-effects reported included postural hypotension, headaches, menstrual irregularities and polyuria. Nearly all thought it would be helpful to investigate spironolactone use for female patients aged ≤ 18 years (92%, 105 of 114). This survey shows variation in clinical practice treating acne with spironolactone. Nearly all respondents reported some effectiveness in adults, but there was less certainty in those aged ≤ 18 years, although the number of respondents was smaller. The main safety concerns were regarding fertility, teratogenicity, hormonal implications and lack of long-term data. L.O. and Z.M. are first coauthors.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.271 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of DermatologySame topicAcne and Rosacea Treatments and EffectsFrench-language works237,207