Evaluation of the clinical efficacy of the 1,450 nm laser in acne vulgaris: a randomized split-face, investigator-blinded clinical 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.

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.

Photobiomodulation: The Clinical Applications of Low-Level Light Therapy

BACKGROUND

Low-level light therapy (LLLT) is a recent addition to the pantheon of light-based therapeutic interventions. The absorption of red/near-infrared light energy, a process termed "photobiomodulation," enhances mitochondrial ATP production, cell signaling, and growth factor synthesis, and attenuates oxidative stress. Photobiomodulation is now highly commercialized with devices marketed directly to the consumer. In the gray area between the commercial and therapeutic sectors, harnessing the clinical potential in reproducible and scientifically measurable ways remains challenging.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this article was to summarize the clinical evidence for photobiomodulation and discuss the regulatory framework for this therapy.

METHODS

A review of the clinical literature pertaining to the use of LLLT for skin rejuvenation (facial rhytids and dyschromias), acne vulgaris, wound healing, body contouring, and androgenic alopecia was performed.

RESULTS

A reasonable body of clinical trial evidence exists to support the role of low-energy red/near-infrared light as a safe and effective method of skin rejuvenation, treatment of acne vulgaris and alopecia, and, especially, body contouring. Methodologic flaws, small patient cohorts, and industry funding mean there is ample scope to improve the quality of evidence. It remains unclear if light-emitting diode sources induce physiologic effects of compararable nature and magnitude to those of the laser-based systems used in most of the higher-quality studies.

CONCLUSIONS

LLLT is here to stay. However, its ubiquity and commercial success have outpaced empirical approaches on which solid clinical evidence is established. Thus, the challenge is to prove its therapeutic utility in retrospect. Well-designed, adequately powered, independent clinical trials will help us answer some of the unresolved questions and enable the potential of this therapy to be realized.

Anti-Inflammatory Effects Induced by Near-Infrared Light Irradiation through M2 Macrophage Polarization

Near-infrared (NIR) can penetrate the dermis. NIR is able to regulate cutaneous component cells and immune cells and shows significant anti-inflammatory therapeutic effects. However, the mechanisms of these effects are largely unknown. The purpose of this study is to elucidate NIR-induced molecular mechanisms on macrophages because macrophages play initial roles in directing immune responses by their M1 or M2 polarizations. Proteomic analysis revealed that NIR radiation enhanced the expression of mitochondrial respiratory gene citrate synthase. This increased citrate synthase expression was triggered by NIR-induced H3K4 hypermethylation on the citrate synthase gene promoter but not by heat, which led to macrophage M2 polarization and finally resulted in TGFβ1 release from CD4⁺ cells. These cellular effects were validated in human primary macrophages and abdominal NIR-irradiated mouse experiments. In a phorbol 12-myristate 13-acetate‒induced inflammatory model on mouse ear, we confirmed that NIR irradiation induced significant anti-inflammatory effects through decreased M1 counts, reduced TNF-α, and increased CCL22 and/or TGFβ1 levels.

A Novel Combined Light-Based Treatment of Acne Vulgaris With 1,450-nm Diode Laser and 450-nm Blue Light

BACKGROUND

Nonablative 1,450-nm diode laser (DL) and visible blue light (BL) have been effectively used for acne with superior safety profiles.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate synergistic effects of sequential DL and BL application for acne.

METHODS

A 20-week, randomized split-face study was conducted to compare clinical courses between 2 facial sides either receiving sequential application of DL and BL or BL alone in 24 patients with mild to moderate facial acne vulgaris. Patients were scheduled to receive 3 consecutive sessions at 4-week intervals. Objective assessments, including revised Leeds grades, lesion counts, and sebum output measurements, and patients' subjective satisfaction were investigated.

RESULTS

Both combination and BL sides demonstrated steady improvement of inflammatory acne lesions with 62.3% and 35.2% decreases at the 12-week follow-up visit compared with baseline respectively. For noninflammatory lesions and seborrhea, only combination regimen demonstrated improvement. Patients' subjective assessments paralleled objective findings. For safety profiles, no severe adverse effect was observed on both sides, and mild symptoms resolved spontaneously within a day.

CONCLUSION

The combination regimen demonstrated synergistic efficacies for acne and seborrhea, with satisfactory safety profiles. Therefore, a few sessions of these light-based applications would be a viable option for acne treatments.

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.

Concomitant Use of 1,550-nm Nonablative Fractional Laser With Low-Dose Isotretinoin for the Treatment of Acne Vulgaris in Asian Patients: A Randomized Split-Face Controlled Study

BACKGROUND

Nonablative fractional laser (NAFL) has been shown to improve the appearance of inflammatory acne and acne scars. Isotretinoin is effective for the treatment of moderate-to-severe cases of recalcitrant acne. However, the recommended dose of isotretinoin can have profound effects.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the clinical efficacy and safety of performing NAFL treatment in patients with moderate-to-severe acne vulgaris under treatment with low-dose oral isotretinoin.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Eighteen patients who received 10-mg oral isotretinoin per day completed 3 sessions of NAFL treatment on one half of the face and presented for each scheduled follow-up appointment.

RESULTS

Low-dose isotretinoin was effective in managing papules and nodule lesions (p < .001). Comedo lesions were significantly improved on NAFL-treated half-faces, compared with untreated half-faces (p < .05) as well as on the appearance of atrophic boxcar scars (superficial boxcar scar, p < .05; deep boxcar scar, p < .01). The most common side effects of oral isotretinoin were xerostomia and cheilitis. The most common discomforts associated with NAFL treatment were mild transient erythema and edema in the treated area.

CONCLUSION

The combination of NAFL with low-dose isotretinoin is a safe and effective treatment for moderate-to-severe acne.

Novel device-based acne treatments: comparison of a 1450-nm diode laser and microneedling radiofrequency on mild-to-moderate acne vulgaris and seborrhoea in Korean patients through a 20-week prospective, randomized, split-face study

BACKGROUND

While device-based acne treatments are widely applied for patients not tolerating conventional medications, related controlled studies have been still limited. Recently, non-ablative 1450-nm diode laser (DL) and fractional microneedling radiofrequency (FMR) have been effectively used for acne, in addition to well-recognized dermal remodelling effects.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical course of acne treatment between DL and FMR.

METHODS

Twenty-five Korean patients with mild-to-moderate facial acne completed treatments with DL and FMR through a 20-week, randomized split-face study. One randomly assigned half side of each patient's face received DL and the other side by FMR. Treatments were scheduled to receive three consecutive sessions at 4-week intervals. Objective assessments including revised Leeds grades, lesion counts, sebum output measurements, and patients' subjective satisfaction were investigated.

RESULTS

Both DL and FMR demonstrated steady improvement of acne and seborrhoea during treatment sessions. While results between two devices were similar during treatment sessions, FMR was superior to DL in the 12-week follow-up. Patients' subjective assessments for seborrhoea improvement were similar between two devices, while those for acne, skin texture, and acne scars were more satisfactory for FMR. For safety profile, no significant difference was observed between two regimens, while mild postinflammatory hyperpigmentation was observed only in DL side.

CONCLUSION

Both DL and FMR demonstrated efficacies for acne and seborrhoea, with reasonable safety profile. FMR was more effective than DL for the long-term maintenance, and subjective assessments for texture and scar improvements. Therefore, a few sessions of these devices would be a viable option for acne treatments.

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.

Current treatments of acne: Medications, lights, lasers, and a novel 650-μs 1064-nm Nd: YAG laser

The treatment of acne, especially severe acne, remains a challenge to dermatologists. Therapies include retinoids, antibiotics, hormones, lights, lasers, and various combinations of these modalities. Acne is currently considered a chronic rather than an adolescent condition. The appropriate treatment depends on the patient and the severity of disease. The purpose of this study was to review current therapies for acne of all severities and to introduce the 650-μs 1064-nm laser for the treatment of acne.

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.

Recent advances in acne pathogenesis: implications for therapy

Acne pathogenesis is a multifactorial process that occurs at the level of the pilosebaceous unit. While acne was previously perceived as an infectious disease, recent data have clarified it as an inflammatory process in which Propionibacterium acnes and innate immunity play critical roles in propagating abnormal hyperkeratinization and inflammation. Alterations in sebum composition, and increased sensitivity to androgens, also play roles in the inflammatory process. A stepwise approach to acne management utilizes topical agents for mild to moderate acne (topical retinoid as mainstay ± topical antibiotics) and escalation to oral agents for more resistant cases (oral antibiotics or hormonal agents in conjunction with a topical retinoid or oral isotretinoin alone for severe acne). Concerns over antibiotic resistance and the safety issues associated with isotretinoin have prompted further research into alternative medications and devices for the treatment of acne. Radiofrequency, laser, and light treatments have demonstrated modest improvement for inflammatory acne (with blue-light photodynamic therapy being the only US FDA-approved treatment). However, limitations in study design and patient follow-up render these modalities as adjuncts rather than standalone options. This review will update readers on the latest advancements in our understanding of acne pathogenesis and treatment, with emphasis on emerging treatment options that can help improve patient outcomes.

Current Laser Resurfacing Technologies: A Review that Delves Beneath the Surface

Numerous laser platforms exist that rejuvenate the skin by resurfacing its upper layers. In varying degrees, these lasers improve the appearance of lentigines and rhytides, eliminate photoaging, soften scarring due to acne and other causes, and treat dyspigmentation. Five major classes of dermatologic lasers are currently in common use: ablative and nonablative lasers in both fractionated and unfractionated forms as well as radiofrequency technologies. The gentler nonablative lasers allow for quicker healing, whereas harsher ablative lasers tend to be more effective. Fractionating either laser distributes the effect, increasing the number of treatments but minimizing downtime and complications. In this review article, the authors seek to inform surgeons about the current laser platforms available, clarify the differences between them, and thereby facilitate the identification of the most appropriate laser for their practice.