Oral zinc therapy of acne. Absorption and clinical effect

Abstract

In a double-blind controlled comparison that lasted eight weeks, tablets of zinc sulfate monohydrate, 411 mg total daily dosage, and a lactose placebo were administered orally to 22 male subjects with moderate acne. At the same time, levels of zinc were determined in serum and urine. There were no statistically significant differences in the lesion counts (papules, pustules, open comedones, and closed comedones) in the zinc-treated and lactose-treated cases, despite evidence in serum and urine of absorption of zinc. The data from this study indicate that oral zinc therapy has no early clinical effect on male patients with moderate acne.

Serum zinc levels and efficacy of zinc treatment in acne vulgaris: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

“…Based on four studies 25‐27,32 with a total of 136 participants in zinc and 130 participants in comparator groups, the SMD in number of acne pustules was not significantly different before treatment at −0.265 (95% CI −0.875‐0.345, P = .395), but was significantly different after treatment at 0.728 (95% CI 0.230‐1.226, P = .004) favoring zinc. Subgroup analysis demonstrated significant differences in the SMD of number of acne pustules at 1.001 (95% CI 0.659‐1.343, P < .005) with topical zinc against active comparators in two studies, 27,32 but no significant difference in the SMD of number of acne pustules at 0.252 (95% CI −0.219‐0.722, P = .294) with oral zinc vs placebo comparators in two studies 25,26 . Subgroup analysis evaluating duration of zinc therapy also showed no statistically significant difference in SMD at 0.767 (95% CI −0.163‐1.697, P = .106) with <12 weeks of treatment and 0.689 (95% CI −0.239‐1.617, P = .145) with 12 weeks of treatment.…”

Safety and Effectiveness of Oral Nutraceuticals for Treating Acne

“…Of these, 2489 records were excluded based on title and abstract screening. Among 93 full-text articles assessed for eligibility, 42 articles (3346 participants) [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review (Figure). Of the included studies, 27 (64.3%) 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, 17, 19-21, 23, 24, 27, 29, 30, 32, 36-40, 42-47 were of poor quality, 11 (26.2%) 8,10,11,[14][15][16]18,22,28,31,34,35 were of fair quality, and 4 (9.5%) 25,26,33,41 were of good quality (Table 1, Table 2, and Table 3).…”

“…Of these, 2489 records were excluded based on title and abstract screening. Among 93 full-text articles assessed for eligibility, 42 articles (3346 participants) met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review (Figure). Of the included studies, 27 (64.3%) were of poor quality, 11 (26.2%) were of fair quality, and 4 (9.5%) were of good quality (Table 1, Table 2, and Table 3).…”

“…Among 93 full-text articles assessed for eligibility, 42 articles (3346 participants) met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review (Figure). Of the included studies, 27 (64.3%) were of poor quality, 11 (26.2%) were of fair quality, and 4 (9.5%) were of good quality (Table 1, Table 2, and Table 3). Detailed information on the included studies, including for poor-quality studies, is available in the eTable in the Supplement.…”

“…Zinc had the highest rate of adverse effect reporting of any nutraceuticals assessed in this review. In most of the included studies, participants reported gastrointestinal tract adverse effects (ie, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, indigestion). In the studies wherein zinc was compared with antibiotics, the rate of gastrointestinal tract adverse effects was similar between the groups.…”