A Comparative Split-Face Study Using Different Mild Purpuric and Subpurpuric Fluence Level of 595-nm Pulsed-Dye Laser for Treatment of Moderate to Severe Acne Vulgaris

A 595 nm pulsed dye laser as an adjuvant intervention for post-comedone extraction erythema and comedone reduction: A randomized, split-face controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Comedone extraction provides greater satisfaction for acne treatment than conventional treatment alone; however, post-comedone extraction erythema (PCEE) remains a concern for patients.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of pulsed-dye laser (PDL) in PCEE and comedone reduction.

METHODS

Mild-to-moderate acne patients were randomly allocated in split-face fashion. Three comedones were extracted on each facial side. On the PDL-treated side, 595-nm PDL was delivered to the entire side with an additional shot on three comedone-extracted sites. Erythema index (EI) and total acne lesion counts (TALC) were evaluated at baseline, week 2 and 4. The comprehensive acne severity scale (CASS) was assessed by three blinded independent pediatric dermatologists. Participant satisfaction surveys were completed at the end of the study.

RESULTS

Thirty-five participants (age 12.9-24.2 years) showed no differences in the EI and TALC at baseline on both sides. At weeks 2 and 4, the EI on the PDL-treated side was significantly lower (p < 0.001) with a greater EI reduction (p < 0.001) when compared to the control side regardless of gender and menstruation. There was significantly lower TALC on the PDL-treated side at week 2 (p < 0.001) and week 4 (p = 0.02). No complications were noted with high participant satisfaction reported (median 8; IQR 7-9). PDL remained significantly associated with EI improvements after controlling for gender, menstruation cycle, and examination stress.

CONCLUSION

PDL can be an adjunctive intervention for the treatment of PCEE and comedone reduction due to its effectiveness and high participant satisfaction.

Efficacy and Safety of Solid-state Dual-wavelength Lasers for the Treatment of Moderate-to-severe Inflammatory Acne in Asian Populations

Background

Standard treatments for moderate-to-severe acne often require oral medications but are not long-lasting or free from side effects. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a solid-state dual-wavelength laser for moderate-to-severe inflammatory acne in an Asian population.

Methods

Forty individuals with moderate-to-severe acne received nightly topical retinoids and two to three weekly treatments with a 1319-nm laser followed by a 589-nm laser (five sessions in total). Patients were evaluated at pretreatment baseline, at monthly intervals, and at 1 month after the last laser for pain, seborrhea, global aesthetic improvements, and satisfaction, using standardized digital photography and global assessment scales. Fifteen patients had an additional evaluation 3 months after the fifth session.

Results

At 1 month, all patients (n = 40) had improved inflammatory acne counts, with 72.5% having greater than 75% reduction in acne count, 7.5% having 51%-75% reduction, 17.5% having 26%-50% reduction and 2.5% having less than 25% reduction. Moreover, GAS evaluations showed that 62.5% of patients improved to almost clear and 37.5% to mild acne (P = 0.0478), while improvements were sustained in patients with 3-month follow-ups. Erythema (n = 29) improved with 65.5% of affected patients having greater than 75% reduction. Patients (n = 17) with pigmentation experienced lightening, with 52.9% of affected patients having a greater than 75% reduction. With low pain scores (mean 3.68 of 10, median 4 of 10), the treatment was well-tolerated. All patients (n = 40) reported acne improvements with 95% having much improved or very much improved, and 95% either satisfied or very satisfied.

Conclusions

Dual-wavelength lasers effectively and safely treat moderate-to-severe inflammatory acne with high patient satisfaction. It is ideal for patients who refuse or are contraindicated to oral medications, and patients with acne-associated pigmentation, erythema and seborrhea.

The Efficacy of Pulsed Dye Laser Treatment for Acne Vulgaris: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Previous reports have shown that pulsed dye laser (PDL) is promising for the treatment of acne; however, results provide conflicting evidence.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the efficacy of PDL in treating acne vulgaris.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies published before March 31, 2020 was conducted. Randomized controlled trials and case series were analyzed. The meta-analysis estimated the standardized mean difference (SMD) in acne severity score changes in patients treated by PDL versus control and also the SMD of the acne severity scores and comedone counts changes before and after PDL treatment.

RESULTS

Eleven studies were included in this systematic review. Six studies were included in the meta-analysis. Pulsed dye laser treatment was not found to be superior to the control group in treating acne vulgaris (SMD: -0.285; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.886 to 0.317). However, single-arm studies revealed a significantly improved acne severity score after PDL therapy (SMD, -1.321; 95% CI, -2.057 to -0.586), especially when a multiple-session treatment and a longer pulse duration were employed. The comedone counts were significantly decreased after PDL therapy (SMD, -0.596; 95% CI, -1.137 to -0.054).

CONCLUSION

When treatment consisted of 4 or more sessions or longer pulse duration, PDL could significantly decrease the acne severity score.

The Use of Lasers and Light Devices in Acne Management: An Update

Acne vulgaris is a disease of the pilosebaceous unit and the most common inflammatory dermatosis worldwide. It is also associated with significant economic burden. Limitations of conventional topical and systemic treatments include long treatment course, intolerable adverse effects, antibiotic resistance, and patient compliance. Therefore, laser and light-based interventions present as alternative options over the past decade and have been used in combination with conventional pharmacological therapies and other physical modalities. An updated overview on the use of lasers and light-based devices in acne management is presented to help clinicians understand the safety and efficacy of these treatment options. The effectiveness of neodymium:yttrium aluminum garnet (Nd:YAG) for treating acne is supported by more high-level studies compared with other laser devices. There is limited evidence to support the use of CO₂ lasers, potassium titanyl phosphate lasers, and 1565-nm non-ablative fractional lasers for treating acne. Among light devices, photodynamic therapy is the most studied, showing higher efficacies than some of the conventional topical and oral acne therapies. Intense-pulsed light and blue light therapies also show favorable outcomes. A limitation is that most studies are non-randomized and lack a control group, and report on a variety of device settings, treatment regimens, and outcome measures, making it challenging to summarize and generalize findings. Although the use of laser and light devices to treat acne is promising, further work with randomized controlled study designs and larger sample sizes will provide improved guidance on the application of these modalities.

The comparative study of efficacy between 1064-nm long-pulsed Nd:YAG laser and 595-nm pulsed dye laser for the treatment of acne vulgaris

BACKGROUND

The popularity of laser therapy in acne treatment has been increasing recently due to its safety, effectiveness, and convenience. Both 595-nm pulsed dye laser (PDL) and 1064-nm long-pulsed neodymium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser (Nd:YAG) have been successful in treating inflammatory acne lesions. However, clinical data from controlled comparative studies are still lacking.

AIMS

To compare the clinical efficacy of 1064-nm Nd:YAG with 595-nm PDL for the treatment of acne vulgaris.

METHODS

Thirty-four participants with mild to moderate facial acne were enrolled and then randomized to receive three, 2-week interval treatments with 1064-nm Nd:YAG on one side of the face and 595-nm PDL on the other side. Clinical assessments including acne lesion counts, acne erythema grading, and erythema index were performed at baseline, 2nd, 4th, and 8th week. Participants' satisfaction, preference, and adverse effects were recorded.

RESULTS

As compared with baseline, the significant reduction of mean inflammatory acne lesion counts, acne erythema grading, and erythema index was demonstrated on 595-nm PDL-treated sides and 1064-nm Nd:YAG-treated sides. However, there were no significant differences between both sides. The participants were satisfied with both laser treatments, but the participants preferred 1064-nm Nd:YAG over 595-nm PDL treatment. The adverse effects were less on 1064 nm Nd: YAG-treated sides.

CONCLUSIONS

1064-nm Nd:YAG and 595-nm PDL treatments are equally effective in reducing inflammatory acne lesions and acne erythema in mild to moderate facial acne vulgaris.

Combined Low-Dose Isotretinoin and Pulsed Dye Laser Versus standard-Dose Isotretinoin in the Treatment of Inflammatory Acne

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Acne is a widespread disorder of the pilosebaceous unit. Isotretinoin is the background treatment of cases of severe acne. Side effects associated with the standard 0.5-1 mg/kg/day dose decrease patient compliance. Pulsed dye laser (PDL) was proved effective in the management of inflammatory acne. The focus was to evaluate the efficacy of combining low-dose isotretinoin (0.25 mg/kg/day) with PDL in comparison with the standard higher-dose isotretinoin (0.5 mg/kg/day) as monotherapy for the management of acne vulgaris.

STUDY DESIGN/MATERIALS AND METHODS

The current prospective randomized comparative study included 46 acne patients, who were randomly divided into two groups. The first (ISO/PDL group) was treated with oral isotretinoin (0.25 mg/kg/day) and five sessions of PDL. The second (ISO group) was treated with oral isotretinoin (0.5 mg/kg/day). The physician's clinical assessment was done by three blinded dermatologists using quartile scale score and erythema score at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months and global acne grading system (GAGS) at baseline and 6 months. Patient satisfaction was assessed using the Cardiff Acne Disability Index (CADI).

RESULTS

Both groups showed a significant improvement in all assessed parameters compared with baseline at 3 and 6 months. Comparing both groups together, the ISO/PDL group showed a statistically significantly greater improvement regarding all parameters at both assessment times. Regarding adverse events, six patients (26%) suffered from flare in the ISO group versus none in the combined group. Dryness was encountered in 20 patients (86%) in the ISO group versus five patients (21%) in the other group. The ISO/PDL group received significantly less cumulative isotretinoin dosage (48.7 ± 5.7 mg/kg) in comparison to the ISO group (100.4 ± 3.1 mg/kg) (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The current study offers a new collaboration between two well-studied and established treatment modalities leading to a harmony of therapeutic synergism while minimizing the risk of side effects. Longer periods of follow-up are recommended to diagnose any relapses and modify the proposed protocol. Lasers Surg. Med. © 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC.

Efficacy of 595- and 1319-nm pulsed dye laser in the treatment of acne vulgaris: a narrative review

Acne is one of the commonest problems of adolescence with almost half of the patients experiencing persistence into adulthood. Pulsed dye lasers (PDL) with wavelengths of 585 and 595 nm targeting hemoglobin have been used for the treatment of this condition and its sequelae. Recent introduction of PDL with a higher wavelength of 1319 nm has been reported to offer some benefit to acne patients. We reviewed the literature on the use of 595-nm and 1319-nm PDL in the management of acne. A PubMed literature search for search terms "pulsed dye laser," "acne laser therapy," "light therapy for acne," "595 nm and acne," "1319 nm and acne" was done. Studies, series and case reports were included. These lasers were compared to other lasers and light sources such as 532-nm Potassium Titanyl Phosphate laser, 585-nm PDLs, 1450-nm diode laser, 1540-nm erbium glass laser, intense-pulsed light (IPL), photodynamic therapy, red and blue light and short-pulsed 1064 nm laser utilized in acne management regarding their efficacy. Improvement in acne grading, scale severity or reduction in lesion count indicated substantial efficacy of the laser system utilized.

Nonvascular uses of pulsed dye laser in clinical dermatology

Lasers are fast becoming the vogue of dermatology ranging from ablative, nonablative, fractional photothermolysis to vascular lasers. There are a range of vascular lasers including potassium titanyl phosphate (KTP 532 nm), pulsed dye laser (PDL -595 nm), diode (810 nm), and Nd:YAG (1064 nm). PDL is a laser that emits yellow light using Rhodamine dye as it is lasing medium. Typical vascular lesions which are treated by PDL include port wine stain, hemangioma, telangiectasia, spider angioma, and rosacea. This article focuses on the use of PDL beyond primary vascular conditions. We review the evidence, or lack thereof, of the use of PDL in acne vulgaris, scars, striae, warts, molluscum, psoriasis, rejuvenation, basal cell carcinoma (BCC), and miscellaneous dermatological sequelae.

Pulsed-dye laser as an adjuvant treatment for papulopustular eruptions from epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors, a randomized blinded split-faced controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the efficacy of pulsed-dye laser (PDL) as an adjunctive treatment for facial papulopustular eruptions from EGFR inhibitors (EGFRi).

METHODS

Fourteen patients with facial acneiform eruptions were recruited. Half side of the face was randomized to receive PDL treatment while the other side served as a control. The treatments were delivered every 2 weeks for 4 sessions. The patients were seen at baseline, weeks 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10. Erythema index (EI) measured by colorimeter, the papulopustular lesion count and physician global assessment (PGA) were obtained. Patients were allowed to use their standard treatments for their eruptions.

RESULTS

Both arms had a significant decrease in EI from baseline at each subsequent visit. In the laser treated side, the mean (95%CI) EI decreased from 23.5 (22.24-24.76) at baseline to 16.3 (15.01-17.59) at week 10, while those of the sham were 23.49 (22.23-24.75) to 20.51 (19.22-21.8), respectively. The mean change was significantly lower in the PDL arm from week 4 onwards. The lesion counts in both groups also decreased significantly, but the mean difference between the arms was not different. PGA scores followed the same pattern as EI.

CONCLUSIONS

Adjunctive treatment with PDL was a safe and effective treatment. Lasers Surg. Med. © 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

The efficacy and safety of non-pharmacological therapies for the treatment of acne vulgaris: A systematic review and best-evidence synthesis

BACKGROUND

Acne vulgaris is a multifaceted skin disorder, affecting more than 85% of young individuals worldwide. Pharmacological therapy is not always desirable because of the development of antibiotic resistance or the potential risk of adverse effects. Non-pharmacological therapies can be viable alternatives for conventional therapies. However, sufficient evidence-based support in the efficacy and safety of non-pharmacological therapies is lacking.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy and safety of several non-pharmacological therapies in the treatment of acne vulgaris.

METHODS

A systematic literature review, including a best-evidence synthesis, was performed to identify literature. Three electronic databases were accessed and searched for studies published between January 2000 and May 2017.

RESULTS

Thirty-three eligible studies were included in our systematic review. Three main types of non-pharmacological therapies were identified laser- and light-based therapies, chemical peels and fractional microneedling radiofrequency. The majority of the included studies demonstrated a significant reduction in acne lesions. However, only seven studies had a high methodologic quality. Based on these seven trials, a best-evidence synthesis was conducted. Strong evidence was found for glycolic acid (10-40%). Moderate evidence was found for amino fruit acid (20-60%), intense pulsed light (400-700 and 870-1200 nm) and the diode laser (1450 nm). Initially, conflicting evidence was found for pulsed dye laser (585-595 nm). The most frequently reported side-effects for non-pharmacological therapies included erythema, tolerable pain, purpura, oedema and a few cases of hyperpigmentation, which were in most cases mild and transient.

CONCLUSION

Circumstantial evidence was found for non-pharmacological therapies in the treatment of acne vulgaris. However, the lack of high methodological quality among included studies prevented us to draw clear conclusions, regarding a stepwise approach. Nevertheless, our systematic review including a best-evidence synthesis did create order and structure in resulting outcomes in which a first step towards future research is generated.

Laser treatments of active acne

The utility of laser therapy is increasingly being recognized in the treatment of active acne vulgaris. We aimed to perform a narrative review of the medical literature on the use of laser therapy for the treatment of active acne vulgaris. We performed a PubMed literature search on September 1, 2016 using the search terms "active acne," "acne," "laser therapy," and "laser surgery." Case reports, case series, cohort, and controlled trials were included. Studies of lasers in the treatment of acne, including erbium glass, Nd:YAG, pulse dye laser (PDL), potassium titanyl phosphate (KTP) laser, and laser-based photodynamic therapy, have been published. While treatment of active acne with lasers has been successful, many studies are limited by small patient number and lack of control populations and comparison to standard therapies for active acne. Laser therapies are increasingly becoming part of or an adjunct to the medical treatment of active acne and are a useful treatment modality.

Light therapies for acne

BACKGROUND

Acne vulgaris is a very common skin problem that presents with blackheads, whiteheads, and inflamed spots. It frequently results in physical scarring and may cause psychological distress. The use of oral and topical treatments can be limited in some people due to ineffectiveness, inconvenience, poor tolerability or side-effects. Some studies have suggested promising results for light therapies.

OBJECTIVES

To explore the effects of light treatment of different wavelengths for acne.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to September 2015: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and LILACS. We searched ISI Web of Science and Dissertation Abstracts International (from inception). We also searched five trials registers, and grey literature sources. We checked the reference lists of studies and reviews and consulted study authors and other experts in the field to identify further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We updated these searches in July 2016 but these results have not yet been incorporated into the review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs of light for treatment of acne vulgaris, regardless of language or publication status.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 71 studies, randomising a total of 4211 participants.Most studies were small (median 31 participants) and included participants with mild to moderate acne of both sexes and with a mean age of 20 to 30 years. Light interventions differed greatly in wavelength, dose, active substances used in photodynamic therapy (PDT), and comparator interventions (most commonly no treatment, placebo, another light intervention, or various topical treatments). Numbers of light sessions varied from one to 112 (most commonly two to four). Frequency of application varied from twice daily to once monthly.Selection and performance bias were unclear in the majority of studies. Detection bias was unclear for participant-assessed outcomes and low for investigator-assessed outcomes in the majority of studies. Attrition and reporting bias were low in over half of the studies and unclear or high in the rest. Two thirds of studies were industry-sponsored; study authors either reported conflict of interest, or such information was not declared, so we judged the risk of bias as unclear.Comparisons of most interventions for our first primary outcome 'Participant's global assessment of improvement' were not possible due to the variation in the interventions and the way the studies' outcomes were measured. We did not combine the effect estimates but rated the quality of the evidence as very low for the comparison of light therapies, including PDT to placebo, no treatment, topical treatment or other comparators for this outcome. One study which included 266 participants with moderate to severe acne showed little or no difference in effectiveness for this outcome between 20% aminolevulinic acid (ALA)-PDT (activated by blue light) versus vehicle plus blue light (risk ratio (RR) 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 1.04, low-quality evidence). A study (n = 180) of a comparison of ALA-PDT (activated by red light) concentrations showed 20% ALA was no more effective than 15% (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.15) but better than 10% ALA (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.42) and 5% ALA (RR 1.47, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.81). The number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) was 6 (95% CI 3 to 19) and 4 (95% CI 2 to 6) for the comparison of 20% ALA with 10% and 5% ALA, respectively.For our second primary outcome 'Investigator-assessed changes in lesion counts', we combined three RCTs, with 360 participants with moderate to severe acne and found methyl aminolevulinate (MAL) PDT (activated by red light) was no different to placebo cream plus red light with regard to change in inflamed lesions (ILs) (mean difference (MD) -2.85, 95% CI -7.51 to 1.81), percentage change in ILs (MD -10.09, 95% CI -20.25 to 0.06), change in non-inflamed lesions (NILs) (MD -2.01, 95% CI -7.07 to 3.05), or in percentage change in NILs (MD -8.09, 95% CI -21.51 to 5.32). We assessed the evidence as moderate quality for these outcomes meaning that there is little or no clinical difference between these two interventions for lesion counts.Studies comparing the effects of other interventions were inconsistent or had small samples and high risk of bias. We performed only narrative synthesis for the results of the remaining trials, due to great variation in many aspects of the studies, poor reporting, and failure to obtain necessary data. Several studies compared yellow light to placebo or no treatment, infrared light to no treatment, gold microparticle suspension to vehicle, and clindamycin/benzoyl peroxide combined with pulsed dye laser to clindamycin/benzoyl peroxide alone. There were also several other studies comparing MAL-PDT to light-only treatment, to adapalene and in combination with long-pulsed dye laser to long-pulsed dye laser alone. None of these showed any clinically significant effects.Our third primary outcome was 'Investigator-assessed severe adverse effects'. Most studies reported adverse effects, but not adequately with scarring reported as absent, and blistering reported only in studies on intense pulsed light, infrared light and photodynamic therapies. We rated the quality of the evidence as very low, meaning we were uncertain of the adverse effects of the light therapies.Although our primary endpoint was long-term outcomes, less than half of the studies performed assessments later than eight weeks after final treatment. Only a few studies assessed outcomes at more than three months after final treatment, and longer-term assessments are mostly not covered in this review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

High-quality evidence on the use of light therapies for people with acne is lacking. There is low certainty of the usefulness of MAL-PDT (red light) or ALA-PDT (blue light) as standard therapies for people with moderate to severe acne.Carefully planned studies, using standardised outcome measures, comparing the effectiveness of common acne treatments with light therapies would be welcomed, together with adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines.