Phototherapy for atopic eczema

Tolerability of Narrow-band Ultraviolet-B Phototherapy for Different Dermatological Diseases in Relation to Co-medications

Phototherapy is an efficient therapy for a variety of skin diseases. Various drugs can cause photosensitivity and impact tolerability of phototherapy. The tolerability was investigated of narrowband ultraviolet-B 311 nm therapy in dependence on the underlying disease and long-term co-medication. A total of 534 narrowband ultraviolet-B therapy courses were examined. Compared with psoriasis, adverse events were observed more frequently in eczematous diseases and, in some cases, other indications. About two-thirds of all courses were carried out in patients taking at least one photosensitising drug, according to the summaries of product characteristics. Phototherapy was more frequently associated with adverse events when medication was taken concomitantly. When considering the tolerability of phototherapy in dependence on individual substances or drug classes, no statistically significant result was shown after adjustment.

Clinical Approach to Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis: A Spanish Delphi Consensus

Despite emerging evidence and advances in the management of atopic dermatitis there a lack of consensus regarding the diagnostic criteria, therapeutic approach, method to assess severity, and patient follow-up for this condition. An expert consensus study was conducted to provide recommendations on the management of patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis. The study used Delphi-like methodology based on a literature review, a summary of the scientific evidence, and a 2-round survey. The agreement of 60 panellists on 21 statements was evaluated. Consensus was pre-defined as ≥ 80% agreement of all respondents. In the first round 6 statements reached consensus. Unanimous consensus was achieved regarding therapeutic goals and patient satisfaction (maintained in the long term and periodic goals reassessment recommended every 3-6 months). In the second round, half of the statements reached consensus, all related to patient follow-up, treatment goals, and atopic comorbidities. The statements that did not reach consensus were related to diagnosis (biomarkers, allergy, and food testing) and starting patients on conventional systemic treatment rather than advanced treatment. The study assessed expert opinion regarding a variety of topics related to the clinical approach to patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis, in order to provide guidance on the diagnosis and management of patients with atopic dermatitis.

Efficacy and Satisfaction of Low Doses UVA1 Phototherapy: A Spanish Experience from a Single Centre

Background: UVA1 phototherapy is a treatment used for multiple dermatological conditions. The optimal therapeutic regimens and dosing of UVA1 are a matter of debate. The dosages used vary widely between published studies and there are no evidence-based protocols that provide data on dosage, duration, or the role of maintenance therapy. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the experience in our medical center regarding treatment with UVA1, as well as the degree of patient satisfaction with the treatment according to their pathology. Methods: We present a retrospective evaluation of outcomes, treatment tolerability, and satisfaction in adult patients using a low dose of UVA1 phototherapy, administered in our dermatologic service between 2019 and 2022. Results: A total of 78 patients were treated with UVA1, of whom 46 patients (59%) were over 18 years old, completed treatment, and gave their consent. The overall objective clinical response rate was 91.30% (42/46), achieving a complete response in 17 (36.96%) patients, partial response in 25 (54.34%), and no response in 4 (8.70%). The complete response rates recorded were high in morphea, scleredema, or chronic hand eczema. In terms of the level of satisfaction objectively measured by TSQM-9 version 1.4, highlighting high scores obtained in mastocytosis, systemic sclerosis, morphea, scleredema, chronic hand eczema, or prurigo nodularis (over 65 points). Conclusions: We present a review of treatment with UVA1 phototherapy at low doses with good response in a wide variety of dermatological pathologies.

Phototherapy for atopic eczema

BACKGROUND

Atopic eczema (AE), also known as atopic dermatitis, is a chronic inflammatory skin condition that causes significant burden. Phototherapy is sometimes used to treat AE when topical treatments, such as corticosteroids, are insufficient or poorly tolerated.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of phototherapy for treating AE.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov to January 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials in adults or children with any subtype or severity of clinically diagnosed AE. Eligible comparisons were any type of phototherapy versus other forms of phototherapy or any other treatment, including placebo or no treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodology. For key findings, we used RoB 2.0 to assess bias, and GRADE to assess certainty of the evidence. Primary outcomes were physician-assessed signs and patient-reported symptoms. Secondary outcomes were Investigator Global Assessment (IGA), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), safety (measured as withdrawals due to adverse events), and long-term control.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 32 trials with 1219 randomised participants, aged 5 to 83 years (mean: 28 years), with an equal number of males and females. Participants were recruited mainly from secondary care dermatology clinics, and study duration was, on average, 13 weeks (range: 10 days to one year). We assessed risk of bias for all key outcomes as having some concerns or high risk, due to missing data, inappropriate analysis, or insufficient information to assess selective reporting. Assessed interventions included: narrowband ultraviolet B (NB-UVB; 13 trials), ultraviolet A1 (UVA1; 6 trials), broadband ultraviolet B (BB-UVB; 5 trials), ultraviolet AB (UVAB; 2 trials), psoralen plus ultraviolet A (PUVA; 2 trials), ultraviolet A (UVA; 1 trial), unspecified ultraviolet B (UVB; 1 trial), full spectrum light (1 trial), Saalmann selective ultraviolet phototherapy (SUP) cabin (1 trial), saltwater bath plus UVB (balneophototherapy; 1 trial), and excimer laser (1 trial). Comparators included placebo, no treatment, another phototherapy, topical treatment, or alternative doses of the same treatment. Results for key comparisons are summarised (for scales, lower scores are better): NB-UVB versus placebo/no treatment There may be a larger reduction in physician-assessed signs with NB-UVB compared to placebo after 12 weeks of treatment (mean difference (MD) -9.4, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.62 to -15.18; 1 trial, 41 participants; scale: 0 to 90). Two trials reported little difference between NB-UVB and no treatment (37 participants, four to six weeks of treatment); another reported improved signs with NB-UVB versus no treatment (11 participants, nine weeks of treatment). NB-UVB may increase the number of people reporting reduced itch after 12 weeks of treatment compared to placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.72, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.69; 1 trial, 40 participants). Another trial reported very little difference in itch severity with NB-UVB (25 participants, four weeks of treatment). The number of participants with moderate to greater global improvement may be higher with NB-UVB than placebo after 12 weeks of treatment (RR 2.81, 95% CI 1.10 to 7.17; 1 trial, 41 participants). NB-UVB may not affect rates of withdrawal due to adverse events. No withdrawals were reported in one trial of NB-UVB versus placebo (18 participants, nine weeks of treatment). In two trials of NB-UVB versus no treatment, each reported one withdrawal per group (71 participants, 8 to 12 weeks of treatment). We judged that all reported outcomes were supported with low-certainty evidence, due to risk of bias and imprecision. No trials reported HRQoL. NB-UVB versus UVA1 We judged the evidence for NB-UVB compared to UVA1 to be very low certainty for all outcomes, due to risk of bias and imprecision. There was no evidence of a difference in physician-assessed signs after six weeks (MD -2.00, 95% CI -8.41 to 4.41; 1 trial, 46 participants; scale: 0 to 108), or patient-reported itch after six weeks (MD 0.3, 95% CI -1.07 to 1.67; 1 trial, 46 participants; scale: 0 to 10). Two split-body trials (20 participants, 40 sides) also measured these outcomes, using different scales at seven to eight weeks; they reported lower scores with NB-UVB. One trial reported HRQoL at six weeks (MD 2.9, 95% CI -9.57 to 15.37; 1 trial, 46 participants; scale: 30 to 150). One split-body trial reported no withdrawals due to adverse events over 12 weeks (13 participants). No trials reported IGA. NB-UVB versus PUVA We judged the evidence for NB-UVB compared to PUVA (8-methoxypsoralen in bath plus UVA) to be very low certainty for all reported outcomes, due to risk of bias and imprecision. There was no evidence of a difference in physician-assessed signs after six weeks (64.1% reduction with NB-UVB versus 65.7% reduction with PUVA; 1 trial, 10 participants, 20 sides). There was no evidence of a difference in marked improvement or complete remission after six weeks (odds ratio (OR) 1.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 7.89; 1 trial, 9/10 participants with both treatments). One split-body trial reported no withdrawals due to adverse events in 10 participants over six weeks. The trials did not report patient-reported symptoms or HRQoL. UVA1 versus PUVA There was very low-certainty evidence, due to serious risk of bias and imprecision, that PUVA (oral 5-methoxypsoralen plus UVA) reduced physician-assessed signs more than UVA1 after three weeks (MD 11.3, 95% CI -0.21 to 22.81; 1 trial, 40 participants; scale: 0 to 103). The trial did not report patient-reported symptoms, IGA, HRQoL, or withdrawals due to adverse events. There were no eligible trials for the key comparisons of UVA1 or PUVA compared with no treatment. Adverse events Reported adverse events included low rates of phototoxic reaction, severe irritation, UV burn, bacterial superinfection, disease exacerbation, and eczema herpeticum.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to placebo or no treatment, NB-UVB may improve physician-rated signs, patient-reported symptoms, and IGA after 12 weeks, without a difference in withdrawal due to adverse events. Evidence for UVA1 compared to NB-UVB or PUVA, and NB-UVB compared to PUVA was very low certainty. More information is needed on the safety and effectiveness of all aspects of phototherapy for treating AE.