Fractional Photothermolysis for the Treatment of Postinflammatory Erythema Resulting from Acne Vulgaris

Treatment of erythematous acne scars using 595-nm pulsed dye laser combined with 1565-nm ResurFX nonablative fractional laser

BACKGROUND

Acne vulgaris is a common inflammatory disease associated with various sequelae after skin lesion remission. Acne erythema has been considered simple erythema or a vascular lesion; however, because the understanding of this disease has improved, acne erythema is currently considered an early scar with erythematous components.

AIMS

This study evaluated the efficacy of using both a 595-nm pulsed dye laser (PDL) and 1565-nm nonablative fractional laser (NAFL) for the treatment of erythematous scars caused by acne.

METHODS

Ninety patients with acne scars were equally randomized to two groups. Group A (n = 45) received treatment with the NAFL. Group B (n = 45) received treatment with the PDL and NAFL. Each patient underwent one treatment session and 4 weeks of follow-up.

RESULTS

Qualitative (χ2 = 12.415; p < 0.05) and quantitative (t = 2.675; p < 0.05) scores of Groups A and B were determined using a global scarring grading system and exhibited statistically significant differences. The quantitative score of Group A was higher than that of Group B (6.67 ± 3.46 vs. 4.98 ± 2.44). The erythema areas of the groups differed significantly after treatment, with Group B exhibiting more notable score improvements (5.00 [3.10, 7.10] vs. 2.80 [1.65, 4.60]; Z = 3.072; p < 0.05). The erythema regression rate of Group B (88.9%) was significantly higher than that of Group A (66.7%) (χ2 = 20.295; p < 0.001). Adverse events, including redness and swelling (86.6%), scabbing (78.8%), and purpura (36.6%), occurred within 7 days for 86.6% of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The combined use of the PDL and NAFL is safe and effective for erythematous acne scars.

The role of the topical nasal decongestant oxymetazoline as a novel therapeutic option for post-acne erythema: A split-face, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial

Post-acne erythema (PAE) is one of the most common sequelae of acne inflammation. Unfortunately, the treatment of PAE remains challenging due to limited effective topical treatments. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the efficacy and safety of topical oxymetazoline hydrochloride (OxH) 0.05% solution for PAE. This study was a split-face, participants-and investigators-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled trial conducted between December 2021 and March 2022 in Bangkok, Thailand. Healthy adults aged from 18 to 45 years with mild to severe PAE, according to the Clinician's Erythema Assessment (CEA), on both sides of the face were eligible. After randomization, each participant applied the OxH to one side of their face and a placebo to the contralateral face twice daily for 12 weeks. The primary outcome was PAE lesion counts. The secondary outcomes were erythema index, clinical response rate at week 12 ("clear," "almost clear," or "at least two-grade improvement" by CEA), and patient satisfaction scores. A total of 30 participants were enrolled. The OxH-treated skin showed a significantly greater mean difference (MD) reduction in PAE lesion counts than the placebo after 8 weeks of treatment (4.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.42-7.18). Similarly, the MD reduction of the erythema index was higher in the OxH-treated skin from the second week (11.82, 95% CI 8.48-15.15). Additionally, the OxH-treated side also achieved a higher clinical response rate after 8 weeks of treatment (40.00% vs. 6.67%; p = 0.002) and rated higher satisfaction than those using the placebo at the end of the study (mean [standard deviation] satisfaction score 8.30 [0.18] vs 7.40 [0.18], P < 0.001). There were no serious adverse events or flares of erythema during the study. In conclusion, our study demonstrated that the topical OxH 0.05% solution was effective, well-tolerated, and safe for reducing PAE without a rebound effect. It could be a choice of PAE management. Trial Registration: Thai Clinical Trials Registry No. TCTR20211207004.

Lasers for the treatment of erythema, dyspigmentation, and decreased elasticity in macular acne scars: a systematic review

Scarring is one of the most esthetically challenging and psychologically burdening aspects following inflammatory acne. While "macular" disease is the scar subtype with the least complicated outcome, its phase can be regarded as the most defining in the ultimate scar appearance. Moreover, with lasers recently gaining much popularity in the scientific community for managing several dermatologic conditions, we aimed to evaluate whether they would lead to significant benefits. For this systematic review, four databases consisting of PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science were searched using a comprehensive string, with the data from the relevant yet eligible identified records qualitatively synthesized. After investigating the data obtained from the nine included studies, we found the utilized lasers, namely neodymium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet, fractional carbon dioxide, pulsed dye, erbium:glass, pro-yellow, and high-power optically pumped semiconductor, to be highly effective in managing the erythematous or dyspigmented appearance with the reduced elasticity also significantly improving. Moreover, the adverse events were both bearable and minimal, and transient. However, the degree of improvement each type of scar demonstrated following laser therapy varied based on the laser used. Neodymium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet, fractional carbon dioxide, and pulsed dye are the most commonly investigated lasers for managing macular acne scars, demonstrating eye-catching capabilities in managing either erythema or dyspigmentation. However, we still recommend that further comparative interventional studies be carried out, while the intended outcomes also assessed with objective measures for further clarification.

Treatment protocols and efficacy of light and laser treatments in post-acne erythema

BACKGROUND

Post-acne erythema is described as erythema due to release of inflammatory cytokines, dilatation of microcapillaries within papillary dermis and thinning of epidermis. The erythema usually fades; however, it can persist for months.

AIM

In this review, we decided to evaluate efficacy of light and laser treatments in acne-induced erythema.

METHODS

We searched PUBMED, Embase, Cochrane, and Google Scholar for relevant key words. Inclusion criteria were randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that evaluated efficacy of laser or light in PAE until September 2021.

RESULTS

Twelve RCTs were selected for the final assessment. Light and laser treatments included pulsed dye laser (PDL), intense pulsed light (IPL), Q-switched neodymium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet (QS Nd:YAG), fractional photothermolysis, alexandrite, solid-slate 589-1319 nm, and pro-yellow laser.

CONCLUSION

Light and laser treatments are effective treatment modalities in reduction of acne-induced erythema along with active acne lesions and atrophic acne scars.

Post acne erythema treatment: a systematic review of the literature

Post-acne erythema (PAE) is a common sequela of acne inflammation, and it refers to telangiectasia and erythematous lesions remaining after the acne treatment. Although some PAE lesions may improve over time, persisting PAE might be esthetically undesirable for patients. The efficacy of various treatment options for PAE has been investigated in many studies but there exists no gold standard treatment modality. In this study, we aimed to give a systematic literature review on various treatment options for PAE, the advantage of each modality, and compare their efficacy, safety, and feasibility. By using the selected keywords, we carried out a systematic search for articles published from the inception to 28 April 2021 in PubMed/Medline and Embase databases. Of the 5796 initially retrieved articles, 18 of them were fully eligible to be enrolled in our study. In this study, we found that light and laser-based devices were the most frequently used treatments for PAE. Generally, pulsed-dye lasers were the most commonly used laser devices for PAE. Neodymium:yttrium aluminum-garnet lasers were the second most commonly used modalities in treating PAE. Topical treatments such as oxymetazoline, tranexamic acid, and brimonidine tartrate are promising treatments in reducing PAE lesions. In our study, no severe side effects were found. In conclusion, both laser devices and topical agents seem to be effective for PAE lesions; however, further randomized clinical trials are needed in this field.

Updates and Best Practices in the Management of Facial Erythema

Facial erythema is a common dermatologic complaint. There are many medical and procedure-based treatments to help reduce the appearance of unwanted facial redness. The authors review a variety of treatment options and techniques to reduce facial erythema and prominent facial veins including topical medical therapies, a variety of lasers, light- and energy-based devices as well as the use of neuromodulators and sclerotherapy. The benefits and potential pitfalls of each procedure modality are also highlighted.

Fractionation: past, present, future

The development of fractional photothermolysis is a milestone in the history of laser technology and cutaneous resurfacing. Based on the concept that skin is treated in a fractional manner, where narrow cylinders of tissue are thermally heated and normal adjacent skin is left unaffected, the fractional devices have shown effectiveness in treating a variety of conditions. Since its development, we are becoming more adept at using optimal parameters to induce near carbon dioxide laser benefits with a much more comfortable postoperative period and fewer complications. The future remains bright for fractionated laser devices and with new devices and wavelengths, the applications of this technology continue to grow.

Histological validity and clinical evidence for use of fractional lasers for acne scars

Though fractional lasers are widely used for acne scars, very little clinical or histological data based on the objective clinical assessment or the depth of penetration of lasers on in vivo facial tissue are available. The depth probably is the most important aspect that predicts the improvement in acne scars but the studies on histology have little uniformity in terms of substrate (tissue) used, processing and stains used. The variability of the laser setting (dose, pulses and density) makes comparison of the studies difficult. It is easier to compare the end results, histological depth and clinical results. We analysed all the published clinical and histological studies on fractional lasers in acne scars and analysed the data, both clinical and histological, by statistical software to decipher their significance. On statistical analysis, the depth was found to be variable with the 1550-nm lasers achieving a depth of 679 μm versus 10,600 nm (895 μm) and 2940 nm (837 μm) lasers. The mean depth of penetration (in μm) in relation to the energy used, in millijoules (mj), varies depending on the laser studied. This was statistically found to be 12.9–28.5 for Er:glass, 3–54.38 for Er:YAG and 6.28–53.66 for CO₂. The subjective clinical improvement was a modest 46%. The lack of objective evaluation of clinical improvement and scar-specific assessment with the lack of appropriate in vivo studies is a case for combining conventional modalities like subcision, punch excision and needling with fractional lasers to achieve optimal results.