Effects of weekly LED therapy at 625 nm on the treatment of chronic lower ulcers

Photobiomodulation CME part II: Clinical applications in dermatology

Photobiomodulation (PBM) is an emerging treatment modality in dermatology with increasing office and home-based use. PBM is the use of various light sources in the red light (620-700 nm) and near-infrared (700-1440 nm) spectrum as a form of light therapy. PBM is often administered through low-level lasers or light-emitting diodes. Studies show that PBM can be used effectively to treat conditions secondary to cancer therapies, alopecia, ulcers, herpes simplex virus, acne, skin rejuvenation, wounds, and scars. PBM offers patients many benefits compared to other treatments. It is noninvasive, cost-effective, convenient for patients, and offers a favorable safety profile. PBM can be used as an alternative or adjuvant to other treatment modalities including pharmacotherapy. It is important for dermatologists to gain a better clinical understanding of PBM for in-office administration and to counsel patients on proper application for home-use devices to best manage safety and expectations as this technology develops. PBM wavelengths can induce varied biological effects in diverse skin types, races, and ethnicities; therefore, it is also important for dermatologists to properly counsel their skin of color patients who undergo PBM treatments. Future clinical trials are necessary to produce standardized recommendations across conditions and skin types.

LED phototherapy in tissue repair of chronic wounds in people with diabetes: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To identify scientific evidence of LED photobiomodulation in the treatment and tissue repair of chronic wounds in people with Diabetes Mellitus, types I and II.

METHOD

Systematic review conducted from September/2021 to April/2022 in PubMed, LILACS, SCIELO, COHRANE, EMBASE and Web of Science. Randomized and observational clinical trials using LED in wound healing in diabetics, published between 2015 and 2022 were included. Data were descriptively analyzed with title/abstract screening, full text articles reading and definitive selection after meeting the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria.

RESULTS

Fromthe total of 840 references, eight articles were selected, that evaluated the effectiveness of LED phototherapy in wounds of diabetic patients.

CONCLUSION

LED light proved to be beneficial in tissue repair, with increased production in collagen and fibroblasts, angiogenesis, reduction of inflammation and, consequently, a decrease in lesion size.

Visible light. Part I: Properties and cutaneous effects of visible light

Approximately 50% of the sunlight reaching the Earth's surface is visible light (400-700 nm). Other sources of visible light include lasers, light-emitting diodes, and flash lamps. Photons from visible light are absorbed by photoreceptive chromophores (e.g., melanin, heme, and opsins), altering skin function by activating and imparting energy to chromophores. Additionally, visible light can penetrate the full thickness of the skin and induce pigmentation and erythema. Clinically, lasers and light devices are used to treat skin conditions by utilizing specific wavelengths and treatment parameters. Red and blue light from light-emitting diodes and intense pulsed light have been studied as antimicrobial and anti-inflammatory treatments for acne. Pulsed dye lasers are used to treat vascular lesions in adults and infants. Further research is necessary to determine the functional significance of visible light on skin health without confounding the influence of ultraviolet and infrared wavelengths.

Low-level laser therapy for treatment of venous ulcers evaluated with the Nursing Outcome Classification: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Different methods are available for the treatment of venous ulcers. Most current approaches focus on a combination of topical and compressive therapy. Adjuvant low-level laser therapy may be helpful in lesions with a protracted healing course, but evidence for its use is still limited. This paper describes the protocol of a randomized controlled trial designed to compare the effect of adjuvant low-level laser therapy versus conventional venous ulcer tissue repair, evaluated by a nurse using clinical indicators from the Nursing Outcomes Classification (NOC).

METHODS/DESIGN

For this prospective randomized controlled trial, 40 adult patients of both sexes with active venous ulcers will be recruited. Subjects will be selected by the sealed-envelope method without any annotation or external identification that might refer to the type of study group. At the time of unblinding, a label with the description of the group to which the patient belongs (that is, control or intervention) will be found inside the envelope. Conventional treatment (topical medication and compressive therapy) will be offered to both groups. Additionally, the intervention group will receive adjuvant low-level laser therapy. All patients will be followed weekly until ulcer healing or for a maximum of 16 weeks. Evaluation of tissue repair will be based on 14 clinical indicators drawn from NOC for wound healing (secondary intention) and tissue integrity (skin and mucous membranes). The primary endpoint will be decreased wound size and scar formation. This laser therapy is expected to enhance the quality, speed, and effectiveness of the treatment of venous ulcers, a chronic condition. This should reduce associated costs to the health service and allow patients to resume their daily activities sooner.

DISCUSSION

This randomized clinical trial will use a validated method to investigate the effect of a novel intervention for the treatment of venous ulcers.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03229330 . Registered on July 2017.

Dressings and topical agents for treating venous leg ulcers

BACKGROUND

Venous leg ulcers are open skin wounds on the lower leg which can be slow to heal, and are both painful and costly. The point prevalence of open venous leg ulcers in the UK is about 3 cases per 10,000 people, and many people experience recurrent episodes of prolonged ulceration. First-line treatment for venous leg ulcers is compression therapy, but a wide range of dressings and topical treatments are also used. This diversity of treatments makes evidence-based decision-making challenging, and a clear and current overview of all the evidence is required. This review is a network meta-analysis (NMA) which assesses the probability of complete ulcer healing associated with alternative dressings and topical agents.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of (1) dressings and (2) topical agents for healing venous leg ulcers in any care setting and to rank treatments in order of effectiveness, with assessment of uncertainty and evidence quality.

SEARCH METHODS

In March 2017 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses, guidelines and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting. We updated this search in March 2018; as a result several studies are awaiting classification.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled adults with venous leg ulcers and compared the effects of at least one of the following interventions with any other intervention in the treatment of venous leg ulcers: any dressing, or any topical agent applied directly to an open venous leg ulcer and left in situ. We excluded from this review dressings attached to external devices such as negative pressure wound therapies, skin grafts, growth factors and other biological agents, larval therapy and treatments such as laser, heat or ultrasound. Studies were required to report complete wound healing to be eligible.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently performed study selection, 'Risk of bias' assessment and data extraction. We conducted this NMA using frequentist meta-regression methods for the efficacy outcome; the probability of complete healing. We assumed that treatment effects were similar within dressings classes (e.g. hydrocolloid, foam). We present estimates of effect with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for individual treatments focusing on comparisons with widely used dressing classes, and we report ranking probabilities for each intervention (probability of being the best, second best, etc treatment). We assessed the certainty (quality) of the body of evidence using GRADE for each network comparison and for the network as whole.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 78 RCTs (7014 participants) in this review. Of these, 59 studies (5156 participants, 25 different interventions) were included in the NMA; resulting in 40 direct contrasts which informed 300 mixed-treatment contrasts.The evidence for the network as a whole was of low certainty. This judgement was based on the sparsity of the network leading to imprecision and the general high risk of bias in the included studies. Sensitivity analyses also demonstrated instability in key aspects of the network and results are reported for the extended sensitivity analysis. Evidence for individual contrasts was mainly judged to be low or very low certainty.The uncertainty was perpetuated when the results were considered by ranking the treatments in terms of the probability that they were the most effective for ulcer healing, with many treatments having similar, low, probabilities of being the best treatment. The two most highly-ranked treatments both had more than 50% probability of being the best (sucralfate and silver dressings). However, the data for sucralfate was from one small study, which means that this finding should be interpreted with caution. When exploring the data for silver and sucralfate compared with widely-used dressing classes, there was some evidence that silver dressings may increase the probability of venous leg ulcer healing, compared with nonadherent dressings: RR 2.43, 95% CI 1.58 to 3.74 (moderate-certainty evidence in the context of a low-certainty network). For all other combinations of these five interventions it was unclear whether the intervention increased the probability of healing; in each case this was low- or very low-certainty evidence as a consequence of one or more of imprecision, risk of bias and inconsistency.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

More research is needed to determine whether particular dressings or topical agents improve the probability of healing of venous leg ulcers. However, the NMA is uninformative regarding which interventions might best be included in a large trial, largely because of the low certainty of the whole network and of individual comparisons.The results of this NMA focus exclusively on complete healing; whilst this is of key importance to people living with venous leg ulcers, clinicians may wish to take into account other patient-important outcomes and factors such as patient preference and cost.

Light-emitting diodes in dermatology: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

In dermatology, patient and physician adoption of light-emitting diode (LED) medical technology continues to grow as research indicates that LEDs may be used to treat skin conditions. The goal of this systematic review is to critically analyze published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and provide evidence-based recommendations on the therapeutic uses of LEDs in dermatology based on published efficacy and safety data.

METHODS

A systematic review of the published literature on the use of LED treatments for skin conditions was performed on September 13th 2017.

RESULTS

Thirty-one original RCTs were suitable for review.

CONCLUSIONS

LEDs represent an emerging modality to alter skin biology and change the paradigm of managing skin conditions. Acne vulgaris, herpes simplex and zoster, and acute wound healing received grade of recommendation B. Other skin conditions received grade of recommendation C or D. Limitations of some studies include small patient sample sizes (n < 20), absent blinding, no sham placebo, and varied treatment parameters. Due to few incidences of adverse events, affordability, and encouraging clinical results, we recommend that physicians use LEDs in clinical practice and researchers continue to explore the use of LEDs to treat skin conditions. Lasers Surg. Med. 9999:1-16, 2018. © 2018 The Authors. Lasers in Surgery and Medicine Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

A Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Randomized Evaluation of the Effect of Low-Level Laser Therapy on Venous Leg Ulcers

This study aimed to determine the effect of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) on chronic venous leg ulcers (VLUs). A double-blinded prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted to compare incidence of complete wound closure, ulcer size and pain reduction in patients randomized to 24 treatments of placebo or LLLT (635 nm) over 12 weeks. Patients presented with a 6-week history of VLUs ranging in size from 5 to 20 cm2. Venous origin was confirmed by Doppler ultrasound and an ankle brachial index of 0.8 or greater. Of 24 patients, 23% of the test group (n = 13) and 18% of placebo group (n = 11) achieved complete wound closure. At 12 weeks, patients in test and placebo groups had a mean surface area reduction of 6.26 cm2 ( P < .0001) and 6.72 cm2 ( P < .005), respectively, and a mean pain score decrease of 43.54 points ( P < .0001) and 25.73 points ( P = .002) respectively. Differences between groups was not statistically significant for wound closure ( P = 1.0) or ulcer size ( P = .80). Mean ulcer pain was significantly reduced from initiation of treatment compared with 4 weeks’ follow-up after 12 weeks with LLLT ( P < .01). Within the limitations of the study, LLLT may not have early effects as an adjunctive therapy to wound healing of VLUs, but LLLT may have delayed effects on VLU healing and associated pain, which requires further study.