Site icon Discover How To Cure Acne

Two Docs Talk Acne Part 2: Pioneering Treatments in the battle against Acne

Two Docs Talk Acne Part 2: Pioneering Treatments in the battle against Acne

Welcome to MedEvidence, where we help   you navigate the truth behind medical research 
with unbiased evidence, proven facts powered by   ENCORE Research Group and hosted by cardiologist 
and top medical researcher, Dr. Michael Koren.
Hello, I'm Dr. Michael Koren and   this is Dr. Michael Bernhardt, and we're here for 
another session of Two Docs Talk, but in this case   we're in our second section. We established in 
our previous section that you are now fully poddy   trained. I'm poddy trained. Our last talk was his 
first podcast and this is now Michael's second   podcast and he's I am much relieved. He's used the 
facilities and now we're here to talk about acne.   But from the perspective of some of the clinical 
research work that we're about to embark on,   and just for those of you out in the audience, 
Michael and I have worked together for a long   time.

Michael is a tremendous dermatologist. We've 
worked together in clinical trials for a number of   years and Michael is leading a project here in 
Jacksonville which we are particularly excited   about, which is using messenger RNA vaccine 
type technology to treat acne. So why don't   you help our audience understand first why this is 
necessary we talked a little bit about that on the   last session, but to catch everybody up and then 
why you're excited about this particular trial.
I think it's really cool. And   the reason I think it's cool is 
that right now the state of the   art in acne is topical medications. Oral 
antibiotics escalate to Spironolactone,   escalate to Isotretinoin. All good drugs. 
But you know Bernhardt's first law of drugs   any drug can do anything to anyone at any 
time.

Everybody's an independent variable.
And I always tell patients that drugs   are double edged shorts. They can help you, they 
can kill you. So we know there's side effects to   all these things. There's morbidity, there's 
downtime. Mom has to take her little cherub   to the dermatology office. It means she's got to 
leave work, he's got to leave football practice,   they've got to come back. So there's 
a cost to it and in time there's an   opportunity cost to the family and there's 
a pharmacy cost and there's morbidity to it.

Acne can be very psychologically damaging,   a study that was done at a Denmark about 10 years 
ago actually surprised me because it showed it   was more psychologically damaging to teenage 
boys than to girls. Now I would have thought   the opposite. So acne can be very psychologically 
damaging. It can lead to things like depression,   suicidal ideation. So it's not a 
benign or strictly cosmetic issue.
Poorly controlled acne that can lead to scarring   and have severe consequences to the patient. My 
concern is I still think we're in the world of the   1980s and the 1990s in terms of our biotechnology 
for treating acne. I would love to see us being   able to do better. So the concept of having an 
mRNA vaccine that's targeting specific particles   of the Propionibacterium acne's bacteria, which 
is what we think is the pro-inflammatory trigger   for people with acne, is really exciting.

And in 
this study, what we're doing is we're looking at   the usual people people over the age of 18, 
people that have significant comorbidities or   conflicting comorbidities that would disallow 
from the study. Specifically, people that are   past-Accutane patients would probably not qualify 
and we're looking for people that have lesions   that are approximately 20 to 25 inflammatory 
plus 20 to 25 non-inflammatory lesions.
We're not looking for   the moderate acne, severe 
acne or somewhere in between.
Yeah, it's cut, moderate and severe.   I mean someone who has five or 10 cominones 
is not, you know, severe enough to merit this. Just like in the real world In a typical   clinical trial, somebody will actually count them 
to make sure people qualify, I would imagine.
We do. We'll be counting   specifically and there's a standardization of 
the criteria across the whole study.

So it's   not going to be an arbitrary judgment and we're 
looking for people that really need the help,   just like in the real world. If someone 
came in with three or four pimples,   I'm not going to be thinking about a 
vaccine, just like if someone has one   palm unit of psoriasis in the elbow, I'm not 
going to roll out one of the biologics, right?
So if somebody comes to   you and says my prom night is in five 
days, can you help me with this study,   the answer would probably no. No, then it would be 
a chemical peel, right, or a light chemical peel.

So the thinking with this is that we   will inject people at day eight, re-inject them 
at day 56, following them out for about seven,   eight months, and we're looking to see 
at least what they call an IgA two level   reduction in terms of combinatorial or legional 
count, and that will be our primary endpoint.
Cool, cool. So this is early   phase research. So when we do research, 
we typically do it in what we call phases,   phase one being first in humans, phase two 
being a period of time when we're trying   to find the right dosage of whatever therapy 
that we're using, and then phase three being   the broadest phase where we really get to 
the efficacy and safety of the product.
This is a phase one,   phase two combo, so it's really 
phase, yeah, and so that's exciting.
It gives people access to   something that is pretty new, and this is using 
messenger RNA type technologies.

I understand it   Correct. So there's lots of people that 
have had that at this point, we know,   with all the vaccine work that's been done, 
you know both in the room Included, yeah, so   we know that messenger RNA is 
different than DNA products.
I know people get that confused.   Messenger RNA is really the messenger. 
It doesn't affect your genes. This is   just the message between your genes and the 
parts of your body that make things happen,   and we can now do things to allow our body to 
protect ourselves by sending the right message.
Is that a fair way of describing it? Correct,   and that's? I'm glad you brought that out, 
because that's a big misperception out there.
Yeah, yeah. So we're excited to be part of   that and applying it to dermatology is that new or 
is that something you've seen with other products?
I think this is the first thing that I've   seen in my experience that we're approaching from 
a gene-based.

Now there is a phase three melanoma   vaccine in trials, but that's a different. 
Yeah, cancer, different ballpark, you know.   But as far as general dermatology, yeah, this 
is the first vaccine-based treatment I've seen.
Okay, and so you started   to talk a little bit about the advantages 
of this type of concept versus the quote   1980s 1990s version of treatment of acne. So am 
I oversimplifying things by saying this can be a   shot that keeps you free and clear for six months 
eventually, or a year? so what do you think?
Yeah, we're looking to see   what the long term is going to be. 
Yeah, but I mean, my thinking is,   if two injections get you basically 
acne-free, what's the downside?
And how would that compare   with antibiotics, for example? Or?
Antibiotics you use it or lose it.

Now   you have to use it consistently and nine times out 
of 10. The minute you stop, within a week or two,   you're back to square one. So that's why it's 
all patients this is a use or lose at treadmill.
Right, now we do a lot of   work in clinical trials here and obviously I've 
been very involved with it from a cardiovascular   standpoint. Do you think there'll be 
any challenges getting people who have   skin conditions to get involved in clinical 
trial? What's your experience and perception?
Our experience has been. Since   we're targeting 18 and above, I think it's 
going to be a lot easier to get people in.   I think that adolescence is tough because it's a 
family strain. The kids can't drive themselves,   they've got school, they've got sports, 
parents have to take off from work. But   since we're targeting an older cohort, 
I don't think it'll be an issue.

Now you've been a PI in other   acne studies quite a bit more of. Tell us a little 
bit how the patients have perceived that. Do they   enjoy the experience? Do they get things out of it 
that may not be apparent to the average listener?
I think they do. I think they   do. It's helpful to be in a clinical format 
because it's a structured format. There's   accountability. If you're not using the 
drug, we know it. If you're non-compliant,   we know it. There's been studies. Steve Feldman 
out of Wake Forest did a great study about 10   years ago. We put a censorship in a bottle of 
tetracycline and found that 34% of people who   would look them straight in the eye and say I did 
everything, you did never even open the bottle.
We know that compliance   is a challenge particularly 
in the teenage population.
Not out of malevolence on   the part of the patient. Just they're busy.
They get a lot of other things going on, again.
Two shots from the vaccine   will be easier, I think, than having 
someone go through the three or four   step ritual that we routinely prescribe for acne.

So there are huge compliance   advantages potentially for something 
that uses this type of technology.
Absolutely. Two injections and you're done.
How about downsides? We always   like to be balanced in these discussions. Can you 
think of any downside of this type of technology?
Risk of reaction to the injection,   injection site reactions, allergic reaction 
to the injection, and that would be immediate.
So it's unlikely, sure,   it's unlikely that this would happen and we have 
an extra fair amount of experience from this,   from our COVID vaccines that use messenger RNA 
technology.

It happens very, very infrequently,   but not impossible, that there's immediate 
reaction, but can you think of any?
They're looking at the   pericarditis/ myocarditis in terms of 
whether that's going to be an issue   with this vaccine. We don't expect it 
to be based on the technology and the   fact that we're not using an agent that has 
a spike protein, but they're looking at that   and that's an area of special interest 
to the group that's researching this.
Are there other technologies   out there that you are aware of that are trying 
to treat patients with acne using newer concepts?
We're using red light therapy where   you paint Melphalan, which is a variant of one of 
the topical PDT acids.

You paint Melphalan on you,   let it sit for about 15, 20 minutes, put 
the patient under red wavelength of light   for 10 minutes per side. There was just 
an article that was published last month   in the Journal of the American Academy 
of Dermatology out of China, where they   did that weekly and got a six-month clearance 
level that was similar to someone who'd been on   Isotretinoin. So we've started doing that in our 
clinic over in Tallahassee with patients also.
Interesting, Interesting.   Let's also just make sure that we're covering 
everything. Some of the questions we get,   especially when we talk about 
this high-tech stuff. They say,   well, aren't there simple things? I got an 
interesting question in my last presentation   to a live audience at the local TV studio. They 
said well, can a supplement do all this? Why do   we need all this expensive high-tech stuff? 
Let's answer that fairly.

Can we just change   your diet and the acne will go away? Is there a 
supplement that make it go away? If that, worked.
I wouldn't be seeing patients with   it because everybody tries that before 
they go, by the time they get to me,   I'm ahead of a residency clinic. By the time 
they get to me, they've seen the minute clinic,   they've seen their primary care doctor, they've 
seen one of the other dermatologists in town,   and then they're coming to us because they're end 
stage. So if any of this simple treatment worked,   they wouldn't be coming to me. So I guess 
the answer is in our population none. Now   maybe there's a cohort out there that have 
done the simple things. They're better.   I don't see them. That's great. And the 
population that we treat? The answer is no.
So I will leave it this final   concept.

So I loved the fact that you talked 
about that. We're still kind of stuck in the   80s when it comes to acne treatment, and we 
talked about this a little bit before we got   on the podcast that we're both musicians 
that happen to love music from the 80s. So   there's some good things from there that 
we'll keep on going back to and there's   other things that need to evolve and get into 
a more modern phase, and it doesn't mean that   you throw away the old stuff, but there's 
certainly room for some of the new stuff.
Absolutely right, yeah.   So with that in mind, Michael, thank you so 
much for being part of this. I learned a lot.   Hopefully our audience learned something 
during the discussion. I'm sure they did,   and you're always welcome back, 
and if there's anything we can   do to support your very, very interesting 
research, please let us know. Thank, you.
It's a pleasure.   Thanks for joining the MedEvidence podcast. 
To learn more, head over to MedEvidence.com or subscribe to our podcast on your 
channel, your favorite podcast platform.

As found on YouTube

Exit mobile version