The pulsed-dye laser as an adjuvant treatment modality in acne vulgaris: a randomized controlled single-blinded trial

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.

Nanomedicine-fortified cosmeceutical serums for the mitigation of psoriasis and acne

Cosmetics have a long history of use for regenerative and therapeutic purposes that are appealing to both genders. The untapped potential of nanotechnology in cosmeceuticals promises enhanced efficacy and addresses the issues associated with conventional cosmetics. In the field of cosmetics, the incorporation of nanomedicine using various nanocarriers such as vesicle and solid lipid nanoparticles significantly enhances product effectiveness and promotes satisfaction, especially in tackling prevalent skin diseases. Moreover, vesicle-fortified serum is known for high skin absorption with the capacity to incorporate and deliver various therapeutics. Additionally, nano-embedded serum-based cosmeceuticals hold promise for treating various skin disorders, including acne and psoriasis, heralding potential therapeutic advancements. This review explores diverse nanotechnology-based approaches for delivering cosmetics with maximum benefits.

Intense Pulsed Light Therapy Improves Acne-Induced Post-inflammatory Erythema and Hyperpigmentation: A Retrospective Study in Chinese Patients

Introduction

Post-inflammatory erythema (PIE) and post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH) are the most common acne-related sequelae with no effective treatments. By combining different cut-off filters, intense pulsed light (IPL) therapy can effectively treat these conditions with few side effects. While the safety and effectiveness of IPL for treating post-burn hyperpigmentation is well known, there is little evidence for its benefits for acne-related PIH. In this article, we evaluate the efficacy and safety of IPL for the treatment of acne-related PIE and PIH.

Methods

This retrospective study evaluated 60 patients with more than 6 months of PIE and PIH treated by the same IPL device and similar protocols. The treatment included three to seven sessions at 4–6-week intervals, and three cut-off filters (640 nm, 590 nm and 560 nm) were used sequentially in each session. Using the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS), Cardiff Acne Disability Index (CADI), and Erythema Assessment Scale (EAS), patients were evaluated on the basis of their facial photographs. The facial brown spots and red areas were visualised and analysed using the VISIA-CR system. Six months after the last treatment, the patients were assessed for acne relapse or any side effects.Please check and confirm that the authors and their respective affiliations have been correctly processed and amend if necessary.Checked and confirmed. No further corrections.

Results

On the basis of the GAIS, 49 of 60 patients (81.7%) showed complete or partial clearance of erythema and hyperpigmentation. The CADI and EAS scores showed significant improvement (p < 0.01) after IPL treatment compared with pre-treatment. A significant reduction (p < 0.01) in the facial brown spots and red areas was seen after IPL treatment. While no long-term side effects were reported, seven patients (11.7%) experienced acne relapse at follow-up.

Conclusion

IPL is an effective and safe treatment for acne-related PIE and PIH.

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.

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.

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.

Approaches to limit systemic antibiotic use in acne: Systemic alternatives, emerging topical therapies, dietary modification, and laser and light-based treatments

Acne is one of the most common diseases worldwide and affects ∼50 million individuals in the United States. Oral antibiotics are the most common systemic agent prescribed for the treatment of acne. However, their use might be associated with a variety of adverse outcomes including bacterial resistance and disruption of the microbiome. As a result, multiple treatment guidelines call for limiting the use of oral antibiotics in the treatment of acne, although actual prescribing often does not follow these guidelines. In this review, the rationale for concerns regarding the use of oral antibiotics for the management of acne is reviewed. In addition, we will discuss our approach to complying with the intent of the guidelines, with a focus on novel topical agents, dietary modification, laser and light-based modalities, and systemic medications, such as spironolactone, combined oral contraceptives, and oral isotretinoin.

Light therapies for acne: abridged Cochrane systematic review including GRADE assessments

We undertook a Cochrane review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effects of light-based interventions for acne vulgaris. We searched the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, ISI Web of Science and grey literature sources (September 2015). We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group approach to assess the quality of evidence (QoE). We included 71 RCTs (4211 participants, median sample size 31). Results from a single study (n = 266, low QoE) showed little or no difference in effectiveness on participants' assessment of improvement between 20% aminolaevulinic acid (ALA) photodynamic therapy (PDT), activated by blue light, vs. vehicle plus blue light, whereas another study (n = 180) comparing ALA-PDT (red light) concentrations showed that 20% ALA-PDT was no more effective than 15% ALA-PDT but better than 10% and 5% ALA-PDT. Pooled data from three studies (n = 360, moderate QoE) showed that methyl aminolaevulinate PDT, activated by red light, had a similar effect on changes in lesion counts vs. placebo cream with red light. Several studies compared yellow light with placebo or no treatment, infrared light with no treatment, gold microparticle suspension with vehicle and clindamycin/benzoyl peroxide (C/BPO) combined with pulsed dye laser with C/BPO alone. None of these showed any clinically significant effects. Most studies reported adverse effects, but inadequately, with scarring reported as absent, and blistering only in studies on intense pulsed light, infrared light and PDT (very low QoE). Carefully planned studies, using standardized outcome measures and common acne treatments as comparators, are needed.

Quality of life measurement in acne. Position Paper of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology Task Forces on Quality of Life and Patient Oriented Outcomes and Acne, Rosacea and Hidradenitis Suppurativa

Acne causes profound negative psychological and social effects on the quality of life (QoL) of patients. The European Dermatology Forum S3-Guideline for the Treatment of Acne recommended adopting a QoL measure as an integral part of acne management. Because of constantly growing interest in health-related QoL assessment in acne and because of the high impact of acne on patients' lives, the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology Task Force on QoL and Patient Oriented Outcomes and the Task Force on Acne, Rosacea and Hidradenitis Suppurativa have documented the QoL instruments that have been used in acne patients, with information on validation, purposes of their usage, description of common limitations and mistakes in their usage and overall recommendations.

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.

Randomized, controlled trial split-faced study of 595-nm pulsed dye laser in the treatment of acne vulgaris and acne erythema in adolescents and early adulthood

The high prevalence of acne vulgaris in teenagers has increased comorbidities. Lasers offer alternative options for acne treatment because they have rapid action, low systemic adverse effects, and do not require everyday treatment. To study the efficacy and patients' satisfaction of 595-nm pulse dye laser (PDL) treatment of acne vulgaris and acne erythema in adolescents and early adulthood, we designed a blocked-randomized, split-faced 595-nm PDL (fluence 8 J/cm³ pulse duration 10 ms, spot size 7 mm, 2 session every 2 weeks) study in patients with mild to moderate acne by comparing the laser-treated and non-treated side. The acne lesion counts, acne erythema grading, and acne severity grading were evaluated at baseline and 2, 4, and 8 weeks. Thirty patients were recruited. The results showed no statistically significant difference except the papule count at week 4 which was -1.828 on the treated side and 0.103 on the non-treated side of the face, P-value 0.0018. There was no statistically significant difference of acne severity grading and acne erythema grading between both sides of the face. The mean scores of patients' satisfaction on the laser-treated side were 75, 81, and 81%, respectively. The PDL treatment in this study reveals no significant improvement in acne therapy; however, the patients were satisfied with this laser treatment.

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.

Light-based therapies in acne treatment

The use of light and laser in the treatment of acne is increasing as these modalities are safe, effective, and associated with no or minimal complications when used appropriately. These light and laser sources are also being used in combination with pharmacological and/or physical measures to synergize their effects and optimize the therapeutic outcome. This review focuses on optical devices used in treating acne and serves to delineate the current application of various methods, including their utility and efficacy.

New approaches in light/laser therapies and photodynamic treatment of acne

Acne is a domain in which the technology and understanding of light/laser therapeutic procedures have advanced considerably. The aim of the paper was to revisit adjunctive physical treatments of acne, including light/laser treatments and photodynamic therapy. This review summarizes findings about such treatment modalities with particular emphasis on efficacy and safety. A number of laser/light-based modalities have been developed to meet the increasing demand for new acne treatments. The current devices correspond, on the one hand, to light-emitting diode therapy and, on the other hand, to the 532-nm potassium titanyl phosphate laser, the 585- and 595-nm pulsed dye laser, the 1450-nm diode laser, the 1320-nm Nd:YAG laser and intense pulsed light. Photodynamic therapy is also available. It is claimed that light/laser treatments might induce a faster response compared with the 1-3 months needed for response to traditional oral and topical treatments. In conclusion, pulsed dye laser shows efficacy in some patients with mild to moderate acne. The relative effectiveness compared with other treatments is unconfirmed; from the published information, evidence-based efficacy assessment of light/laser therapies in acne remains almost impossible.