Early acne scar intervention with 1064 nm picosecond laser in patients receiving oral isotretinoin: a randomized split-face controlled pilot study

Efficacy and safety comparison between pulsed dye laser and intense pulsed light configured with different wavelength bands in treating erythematotelangiectatic rosacea

Previous clinical studies have shown that pulsed dye laser (PDL) and intense pulsed light (IPL) are effective for treating erythematotelangiectatic rosacea(ETR). This article aims to compare the efficacy and safety of PDL and IPL at three different wavelength bands (broad-band, single-narrow-band, and dual-narrow-band) in treating ETR. Sixty subjects with ETR were randomly categorized into four groups and received one of the following laser treatments: PDL (595 nm), IPL with Delicate Pulse Light (DPL, 500-600 nm), IPL with M22 590 (590-1200 nm), or IPL with M22 vascular filter (530-650 nm and 900-1200 nm). Four treatment sessions were administered at 4-week intervals, with one follow-up session 4 weeks after the final treatment. The efficacy of the four lasers was evaluated by comparing the clinical symptom score, total effective rate, VISIA red area absolute score, and RosaQoL score before and after treatment. The safety was evaluated by comparing adverse reactions such as pain, purpura, erythematous edema, and blister. All 60 subjects completed the study. Within-group effects showed that the clinical symptom score, VISIA red area absolute score, and RosaQoL score of all four groups were significantly reduced compared to before treatment (p < 0.001). Between-group effects showed no statistically significant difference among the four laser groups. Safety analysis showed that all four lasers were safe, but the incidence of blister was higher in the M22 vascular group. Nonpurpurogenic PDL, DPL, M22 590, and M22 vascular were equally effective in treating ETR and were well-tolerated. ClinicalTrial.gov Identifier: NCT05360251.

Review of Fractional Nonablative Lasers for the Treatment of Dermatologic Conditions in Darker Skin Phototypes

BACKGROUND

Fractional nonablative lasers (NAFLs) have demonstrated efficacy and safety for treating dermatologic conditions in patients with darker skin phototypes. Nonablative lasers are preferred in darker skin tones due to lower risk of postinflammatory hyperpigmentation.

OBJECTIVE

This review aims to identify the ideal laser options and parameters for treating common dermatologic conditions in patients with skin types IV-VI.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted on PubMed in May 2023. Of 1,065 articles were identified, and 40 articles met the inclusion criteria. The studies were classified based on design, dermatologic condition, and skin phototype of patients, and assigned levels of evidence according to the Modified Criteria of the Oxford Center of Evidence Based Medicine.

RESULTS

Strong level 1 evidence supports the treatment of melasma and atrophic scars using NAFL. Moderate level 2 evidence was found for using NAFL in acne vulgaris, striae, and skin rejuvenation; 45% of the studies examined skin types III-IV, 20% III-V, 7.5% II-IV, 5% II-V, 5% IV alone, and 2.5% I-IV.

CONCLUSION

Further research is needed to determine the optimal treatment modalities and parameters for skin types V and VI. Appropriate device selection and conservative treatment settings are crucial for optimizing outcomes and minimizing adverse events.

Efficacy and safety of low-dose oral isotretinoin monotherapy versus combined therapy with picosecond laser for the treatment of acne scars in Asian population

PURPOSE

Acne scars are common in patients with moderate to severe acne. Isotretinoin is the first-line treatment for those patients, but whether oral isotretinoin can improve acne scar is not clear. Picosecond lasers (FxPico) has been reported to improve acne scars. In the present study, we evaluated the clinical efficacy of low-dose isotretinoin with or without FxPico treatment for acne scars.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 48 patients with acne scars were enrolled and were randomly assigned to receive low dose oral isotretinoin or not. For all the patients in both treatment groups, one side of face were randomly assigned to be treated with picosecond laser. Assessments, including photos, échelle d'évaluation clinique des cicatrices d'acné (ECCA) and Global Acne Grading System (GAGS) score, the number of lesions, melanin and erythema indexes, transepidermal water loss were assessed at 0, 1, 2, and 3 month. Side effects, Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) and satisfaction were recorded before and after the study.

RESULTS

A total of 44 patients completed the study (24 received oral low dose isotretinoin and 20 did not). Low dose oral isotretinoin treated group showed significant improvement on ECCA (from 112.5 [50-180] to 105 [50-160]), GAGS score (from 12.6 ± 3.3 to 10.1 ± 3.0), the count of papules (from 4.3 ± 3.7 to 1.0 ± 1.5) than the blank group, and higher improvement were noticed after isotretinoin combined with FxPico. All the side effects were temporary and tolerable, no adverse effects were observed. Higher DLQI and patients' satisfaction were achieved by oral isotretinoin alone and isotretinoin combined with FxPico.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first paper showing the improvement of scars by early low dose-isotretinoin intervention with or without the combination of picosecond laser. Early intervention with oral low-dose isotretinoin is effective for the treatment and prevention of acne scars, the combined therapy with FxPico can achieve better outcome.