# Lactobacillus‐Based Microbiome Therapy for Acne Vulgaris: A GRADE Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

## TL;DR

This study reviews and analyzes the effectiveness of Lactobacillus-based probiotics for treating acne, finding no significant improvement compared to placebo or benzoyl peroxide.

## Contribution

The study provides a systematic review and meta-analysis of Lactobacillus-based probiotics for acne treatment, offering evidence on their efficacy and safety.

## Key findings

- Lactobacillus-based probiotics showed no significant reduction in inflammatory acne lesions.
- No significant improvement was observed in non-inflammatory or total acne lesion counts.
- The results suggest that these probiotics may not be more effective than placebo or benzoyl peroxide.

## Abstract

Acne vulgaris is one of the most prevalent disorders affecting 9%–10% of the global population, representing as papules, pustules, and comedones, with a pathogenesis involving increased sebum production, C. acnes colonization, and inflammation. Conventional treatments like retinoids and antibiotics often cause side effects, thus diverting attention toward probiotics as an alternative therapy. Lactobacillus probiotics, having their immunomodulatory, anti‐inflammatory, and antimicrobial properties, are useful in managing acne by reducing inflammation and oxidative stress with proved safety profile and the potential to reduce antibiotic reliance. This systematic review and meta‐analysis evaluate the efficacy of Lactobacillus‐based probiotics compared to placebo and benzoyl peroxide in reducing inflammatory lesions, non‐inflammatory lesions, and total acne lesion counts. The findings aim to clarify their therapeutic role and provide evidence on their effectiveness and safety.

This systematic review and meta‐analysis investigated the effectiveness of oral and topical Lactobacillus‐based probiotics or postbiotics, compared with placebo or benzoyl peroxide, in patients with acne vulgaris.

A systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted, including studies evaluating oral or topical Lactobacillus‐based probiotic or postbiotic interventions in patients with acne vulgaris. Primary outcomes were changes in inflammatory lesion counts, while secondary outcomes included non‐inflammatory and total lesion counts, skin hydration, and sebum concentration. All analyses were performed using random‐effects models with 95% confidence intervals (CI), and heterogeneity was quantified using the I2 statistic.

A total of five RCTs involving 332 participants were included. The pooled mean difference for non‐inflammatory lesions was −1.39 (95% CI −5.10 to 2.32, p = 0.46), for inflammatory lesions was −0.08 (95% CI −1.28 to 1.11, p = 0.89), and for total lesion counts was −9.07 (95% CI −20.71 to 2.57, p = 0.13). These results concluded that there was no significant reduction in lesion counts with Lactobacillus‐based probiotics as compared to placebo or benzoyl peroxide. Heterogeneity was moderate to low across studies.

This meta‐analysis indicates that Lactobacillus‐based probiotics do not provide significant clinical benefits in reducing inflammatory lesions, non‐inflammatory lesions, and total acne lesion counts in Acne vulgaris patients compared to placebo or benzoyl peroxide.