Treatment of diabetic foot ulcers in a frail population with severe co-morbidities using at-home photobiomodulation laser therapy: a double-blind, randomized, sham-controlled pilot clinical study

Efficacy and safety of red and infrared light in the adjunctive treatment on diabetic foot ulcers: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The use of various adjunctive phototherapies for diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) makes it difficult to fully understand their roles in current laser-based review studies. Red and infrared light have significant advantages for wound healing. To evaluate the impact of red and infrared light on the healing of DFUs and provide evidence-based recommendations for future clinical adjunctive treatments of DFUs.

METHODS

Multiple databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CINAHL, PEDro, CNKI, CBM, Wanfang, and VIP, were systematically searched for articles published until November 2023. The focus of the search was to identify randomised controlled trials that investigated the effects of red and infrared light on the treatment of DFUs. Data extraction, literature screening, and methodological quality assessment were conducted independently by two researchers. A meta-analysis was performed using RevMan5.4 and STATA16.0 software.

RESULTS

A total of 28 studies, involving 1471 patients, were included. The meta-analysis showed that groups treated with red and infrared light had a significantly higher ulcer healing rate [risk ratio (RR) = 1.93, 95 % confidence interval (CI) (1.63, 2.28), P < 0.00001], shorter ulcer healing time [mean difference (MD) = 18.52, 95 % CI (8.58, 28.47), P < 0.00001], increased peak blood flow velocity in the dorsalis pedis artery [mean difference (MD) = 6.54, 95 % CI (4.01,9.08)], P < 0.00001), and reduced wound pain score [mean difference (MD) = -4.33, 95 % CI (-4.94, -3.71)], P < 0.00001) compared to the control group. However, there was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of adverse events [odds ratio (OR) = 0.32, 95 % CI (0.09, 1.17), P = 0.08] between the two methods.

CONCLUSION

The use of red and infrared light as an adjunctive treatment for DFUs is more beneficial than conventional wound care. However, due to limitations in the quality and sample size of the included studies, further high-quality research is needed to validate these conclusions.

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.

Tailoring photobiomodulation to enhance tissue regeneration

Photobiomodulation (PBM), the use of biocompatible tissue-penetrating light to interact with intracellular chromophores to modulate the fates of cells and tissues, has emerged as a promising non-invasive approach to enhancing tissue regeneration. Unlike photodynamic or photothermal therapies that require the use of photothermal agents or photosensitizers, PBM treatment does not need external agents. With its non-harmful nature, PBM has demonstrated efficacy in enhancing molecular secretions and cellular functions relevant to tissue regeneration. The utilization of low-level light from various sources in PBM targets cytochrome c oxidase, leading to increased synthesis of adenosine triphosphate, induction of growth factor secretion, activation of signaling pathways, and promotion of direct or indirect gene expression. When integrated with stem cell populations, bioactive molecules or nanoparticles, or biomaterial scaffolds, PBM proves effective in significantly improving tissue regeneration. This review consolidates findings from in vitro, in vivo, and human clinical outcomes of both PBM alone and PBM-combined therapies in tissue regeneration applications. It encompasses the background of PBM invention, optimization of PBM parameters (such as wavelength, irradiation, and exposure time), and understanding of the mechanisms for PBM to enhance tissue regeneration. The comprehensive exploration concludes with insights into future directions and perspectives for the tissue regeneration applications of PBM.

Diabetes in spotlight: current knowledge and perspectives of photobiomodulation utilization

Introduction

Diabetes is a global health concern characterized by chronic hyperglycemia resulting from insulinopenia and/or insulin resistance. The rising prevalence of diabetes and its associated complications (ulcers, periodontitis, healing of bone defect, neuropathy, retinopathy, cardiopathy and nephropathy) necessitate innovative therapeutic approaches. Photobiomodulation (PBM), involves exposing tissues and cells to low-energy light radiation, leading to biological effects, largely via mitochondrial activation.

Methods

This review evaluates preclinical and clinical studies exploring the potential of PBM in diabetes and its complications, as well all clinical trials, both planned and completed, available on ClinicalTrials database.

Results

This review highlights the variability in PBM parameters across studies, hindering consensus on optimal protocols. Standardization of treatment parameters and rigorous clinical trials are needed to unlock PBM's full therapeutic potential. 87 clinical trials were identified that investigated PBM in diabetes mellitus (with 5,837 patients planned to be treated with PBM). Clinical trials assessing PBM effects on diabetic neuropathy revealed pain reduction and potential quality of life improvement. Studies focusing on wound healing indicated encouraging results, with PBM enhancing angiogenesis, fibroblast proliferation, and collagen density. PBM's impact on diabetic retinopathy remains inconclusive however, requiring further investigation. In glycemic control, PBM exhibits positive effects on metabolic parameters, including glucose tolerance and insulin resistance.

Conclusion

Clinical studies have reported PBM-induced reductions in fasting and postprandial glycemia without an increased hypoglycemic risk. This impact of PBM may be related to its effects on the beta cells and islets in the pancreas. Notwithstanding challenges, PBM emerges as a promising adjunctive therapy for managing diabetic neuropathy, wound healing, and glycemic control. Further investigation into its impact on diabetic retinopathy and muscle recovery is warranted.

Electromechanical therapy in diabetic foot ulcers patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose

Diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) is one of the most devastating and troublesome consequences of diabetes. The current therapies are not always effective because of the complicated aetiology and interactions of local and systemic components in DFU. However, adjunctive therapy (electromechanical therapy) has become the latest modality in recent years, although there is a lack of significant research to support its utilization as a treatment standard. The purpose of this systematic research was to review the literature on the application of electromechanical therapies in the healing of DFUs.

Methods

For this systematic review, we searched PubMed, Medline, EmBase, the Cochrane library, and Google Scholar for the most current research (1990-2022) on electromechanical therapies for DFUs. We used the PICO method (where P is population, I is intervention, C is comparator/control, and O is outcome for our study) to establish research question with the terms [Electromechanical therapy OR Laser therapy OR photo therapy OR Ultrasound therapy OR Shockwave therapy] AND [diabetic foot ulcers OR diabetes] were used as search criteria. Searches were restricted to English language articles only. Whereas, Cochrane handbook of "Systematic Reviews of Interventions" with critical appraisal for medical and health sciences checklist for systematic review was used for risk of bias assessment. There were 39 publications in this study that were deemed to be acceptable. All the suitably selected studies include 1779 patients.

Results

The meta-analysis of 15 included research articles showed the overall effect was significant (P = 0.0002) thus supporting experimental groups have improvement in the DFUs healing in comparison to the control group.

Conclusion

This systematic review and meta-analysis revealed electromechanical treatments are significantly viable options for patients with DFUs. Electromechanical therapy can considerably reduce treatment ineffectiveness, accelerate healing, and minimize the time it takes for complete ulcer healing.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40200-023-01240-2.

Physical therapy in diabetic foot ulcer: Research progress and clinical application

Diabetes foot ulcer (DFU) is one of the most intractable complications of diabetes and is related to a number of risk factors. DFU therapy is difficult and involves long-term interdisciplinary collaboration, causing patients physical and emotional pain and increasing medical costs. With a rising number of diabetes patients, it is vital to figure out the causes and treatment techniques of DFU in a precise and complete manner, which will assist alleviate patients' suffering and decrease excessive medical expenditure. Here, we summarised the characteristics and progress of the physical therapy methods for the DFU, emphasised the important role of appropriate exercise and nutritional supplementation in the treatment of DFU, and discussed the application prospects of non-traditional physical therapy such as electrical stimulation (ES), and photobiomodulation therapy (PBMT) in the treatment of DFU based on clinical experimental records in ClinicalTrials.gov.

Photobiomodulation self-treatment at home after rotator cuff arthroscopic repair accelerates improvement in pain, functionality, and quality of life: A double-blind, sham-controlled, randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether self-applied photobiomodulation (PBM) therapy at home, following rotator cuff arthroscopic surgery (RCAS) can accelerate improvement in patient-reported outcomes within the first 6 months postsurgery.

METHODS

This study was a prospective, double-blind, sham-controlled, randomized clinical trial (NCT04593342). Patients (n = 50, age 55 ± 7 years, male:female 29:21) who underwent primary RCAS were randomized to receive active (n = 22) or sham (n = 28) PBM devices (B-Cure Laser Pro, Erica B-Cure LASER Ltd., Haifa, Israel) in addition to standard care. Patients self-applied the treatments (808 nm, 15 min, 16.5 J/cm2 ) at home for 3 months postsurgery. Evaluations were conducted before the surgery (baseline) and at 1-3 and 6 months post-RCAS (FU-1M, FU-3M, FU-6M), and included Constant-Murley score (CMS), range of motion (ROM), subjective pain by visual analogue scale (VAS), disability by QuickDASH, and quality of life (QOL) by SF-12. The difference from baseline to follow-up (ΔFU), %patients achieving minimal clinical important difference (MCID), and patient acceptable symptom score (PASS) were calculated. Comparisons were conducted with superiority 2-sample t test and χ2 .

RESULTS

Baseline values were not significantly different between groups. Both groups had similar improvements in CMS and ROM. However, compared to Sham, PBM significantly accelerated subjective pain reduction at 3 and 6 months (VAS mean ± SD, PBM-vs-Sham: ΔFU-3M 32 ± 33 vs. 16 ± 27, p = 0.040; ΔFU-6M: 41 ± 36 vs. 23 ± 26, p = 0.038), with a significantly higher proportion of patients achieving MCID at 3 months (76% vs. 48%, p = 0.027) and PASS at 6 months (48% vs. 23%, p = 0.044). PBM also significantly accelerated improvement in functionality and QOL at 6 months (QuickDASH ΔFU-6M: 30 ± 24 vs. 18 ± 14, p = 0.029; SF-12 physical component 6.8 ± 12.5 vs. 0.4 ± 8.6, p = 0.031; SF-12 mental component 8.5 ± 9.1 vs. 2.2 ± 12, p = 0.032).

CONCLUSIONS

Self-applied photobiomodulation following RCAS significantly accelerates decrease in pain and disability, and improves QOL. This nonpharmacologic add-on therapeutic modality is easy to use and encourages active patient involvement. Its potential use in rehabilitation following other surgeries should be considered.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I, high-quality RCT.