Efficacy of photodynamic therapy for the treatment of inflammatory acne vulgaris: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Topical, light-based, and complementary interventions for acne: an overview of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Acne is a chronic inflammatory and immune-mediated disease of the pilosebaceous unit (the skin structure consisting of a hair follicle and its associated sebaceous gland). It is characterised by non-inflammatory lesions (open and closed comedones) and inflammatory lesions (papules, pustules, nodules, and cysts). Lesions may be present on the face, thorax, and back, with variable severity. Acne exhibits a global distribution and has a growing prevalence. Acne vulgaris is the most common form. Acne gives rise to complications such as scars and can seriously affect people's mental health, especially those with severe acne. Acne has a huge impact on the quality of life and self-esteem of those affected.

OBJECTIVES

To synthesise the existing evidence on the efficacy and safety of non-systemic pharmacological interventions and non-pharmacological interventions (physical therapy and complementary therapies) in the treatment of acne vulgaris and related skin complications.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Epistemonikos, MEDLINE, and Embase to 2 December 2021, and checked the reference lists of included reviews. At least two authors were responsible for screening, data extraction, and critical appraisal. We excluded reviews with high risk of bias as assessed with the ROBIS tool. We evaluated the overall certainty of the evidence according to GRADE (as carried out by the authors of the included reviews or ourselves). We provide comprehensive evidence from the review data, including summary of findings tables, summary of results tables, and evidence maps.

MAIN RESULTS

We retrieved and assessed a total of 733 records; however, only six reviews (five Cochrane reviews and one non-Cochrane review) with low risk of bias met the overview inclusion criteria. The six reviews involved 40,910 people with acne from 275 trials and 1316 people with acne scars from 37 trials. The age of the participants ranged from 10 to 59 years, with an average age range from 9.8 to 30 years. Four reviews included original trials involving only female participants and three reviews included original trials with only male participants. Main results for clinically important comparisons: Benzoyl peroxide versus placebo or no treatment: In two trials involving 1012 participants over 12 weeks, benzoyl peroxide may reduce the total (mean difference (MD) -16.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) -26.51 to -5.78), inflammatory (MD -6.12, 95% CI -11.02 to -1.22), and non-inflammatory lesion counts (MD -9.69, 95% CI -15.08 to -4.29) when compared to placebo (long-term treatment), but the evidence is very uncertain (very low-certainty evidence). Two trials including 1073 participants (time point: 10 and 12 weeks) suggested benzoyl peroxide may have little to no effect in improving participants' global self-assessment compared to placebo (long-term treatment), but the evidence is very uncertain (risk ratio (RR) 1.44, 95% CI 0.94 to 2.22; very low-certainty evidence). Very low-certainty evidence suggested that benzoyl peroxide may improve investigators' global assessment (RR 1.77, 95% CI 1.37 to 2.28; 6 trials, 4110 participants, long-term treatment (12 weeks)) compared to placebo. Thirteen trials including 4287 participants over 10 to 12 weeks suggested benzoyl peroxide may increase the risk of a less serious adverse event compared to placebo (long-term treatment), but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 1.46, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.11; very low-certainty evidence). Benzoyl peroxide versus topical retinoids: Benzoyl peroxide may increase the percentage change in total lesion count compared to adapalene (long-term treatment), but the evidence is very uncertain (MD 10.8, 95% CI 3.38 to 18.22; 1 trial, 205 participants, 12 weeks; very low-certainty evidence). When compared to adapalene, benzoyl peroxide may have little to no effect on the following outcomes (long-term treatment): percentage change in inflammatory lesion counts (MD -7.7, 95% CI -16.46 to 1.06; 1 trial, 142 participants, 11 weeks; very low-certainty evidence), percentage change in non-inflammatory lesion counts (MD -3.9, 95% CI -13.31 to 5.51; 1 trial, 142 participants, 11 weeks; very low-certainty evidence), participant's global self-assessment (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.06; 4 trials, 1123 participants, 11 to 12 weeks; low-certainty evidence), investigators' global assessment (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.37; 3 trials, 1965 participants, 12 weeks; low-certainty evidence), and incidence of a less serious adverse event (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.25, 1573 participants, 5 trials, 11 to 12 weeks; very low-certainty evidence). Benzoyl peroxide versus topical antibiotics: When compared to clindamycin, benzoyl peroxide may have little to no effect on the following outcomes (long-term treatment): total lesion counts (MD -3.50, 95% CI -7.54 to 0.54; 1 trial, 641 participants, 12 weeks; very low-certainty evidence), inflammatory lesion counts (MD -1.20, 95% CI -2.99 to 0.59; 1 trial, 641 participants, 12 weeks; very low-certainty evidence), non-inflammatory lesion counts (MD -2.4, 95% CI -5.3 to 0.5; 1 trial, 641 participants, 12 weeks; very low-certainty evidence), participant's global self-assessment (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.34; 1 trial, 240 participants, 10 weeks; low-certainty evidence), investigator's global assessment (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.45; 2 trials, 2277 participants, 12 weeks; very low-certainty evidence), and incidence of a less serious adverse event (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.64; 5 trials, 2842 participants, 10 to 12 weeks; low-certainty evidence). For these clinically important comparisons, no review collected data for the following outcomes: frequency of participants experiencing at least one serious adverse event or quality of life. No review collected data for the following comparisons: topical antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment, topical retinoids versus placebo or no treatment, or topical retinoids versus topical antibiotics.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This overview summarises the evidence for topical therapy, phototherapy, and complementary therapy for acne and acne scars. We found no high-certainty evidence for the effects of any therapy included. Randomised controlled trials and systematic reviews related to acne and acne scars had limitations (low methodological quality). We could not summarise the evidence for topical retinoids and topical antibiotics due to insufficient high-quality systematic reviews. Future research should consider pooled analysis of data on new emerging drugs for acne treatment (e.g. clascoterone) and focus more on acne complications.

Study of different pre-treatments in the comparison of the efficacy of photodynamic therapy for moderate to severe acne vulgaris

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of CO2 fractional laser and microneedling pretreatment combined with ALA-PDT for moderate-to-severe acne, aiming to optimize clinical treatment.

METHODS

Patients were randomly divided into three groups: Group A (CO2 fractional laser + ALA-PDT), Group B (microneedling + ALA-PDT), and Group C (ALA-PDT). Each group underwent photodynamic therapy once a week for 3 weeks. Efficacy was assessed at the end of the 4th week, and recurrence was assessed at the end of the 12th week.

RESULTS

A total of 150 patients with moderate to severe acne were included in this study, with 50 patients in each group. Four weeks after the end of treatment, the effective rates were 88 % for Group A, 62 % for Group B, and 36 % for Group C. Statistically significant differences were found between the groups (P < 0.05), with Group A showing superior efficacy compared to Group B (P < 0.05). No serious systemic or local adverse reactions were observed in any group. No recurrence was seen in any group 12 weeks after the end of treatment, and some patients continued to show improvement in skin lesions over time.

CONCLUSION

Both the CO2 fractional laser group and the microneedling group improved the efficacy of photodynamic therapy for moderate to severe acne compared to the control group, with the CO2 fractional laser group demonstrating better efficacy and fewer adverse effects.

Exploring Acne Treatments: From Pathophysiological Mechanisms to Emerging Therapies

Acne vulgaris is a common dermatological condition that can present across different ages but predominantly affects adolescents and young adults. Characterized by various lesion types, the pathogenesis of acne is complex, involving genetic, hormonal, microbial, and inflammatory factors. This review comprehensively addresses current and emerging acne management strategies, emphasizing both topical and systemic treatments, procedural therapies, and dietary modifications. Key topical agents include retinoids, benzoyl peroxide, antibiotics, and other specialized compounds. Systemic options like antibiotics, hormonal therapies, and retinoids offer significant therapeutic benefits, particularly for moderate to severe cases. Procedural treatments such as laser devices, photodynamic therapy, chemical peels, and intralesional injections present viable alternatives for reducing acne symptoms and scarring. Emerging therapies focus on novel biologics, bacteriophages, probiotics, and peptides, providing promising future options. This review underscores the importance of personalized approaches to treatment due to the multifaceted nature of acne, highlighting the potential of innovative therapies for improving patient outcomes.

Curcumin-mediated photodynamic therapy for mild to moderate Acne: A self-controlled split-face randomized study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of Curcumin-mediated Photodynamic Therapy (Curcumin-PDT) in the treatment of mild to moderate acne.

METHODS

In this randomized split-face controlled study, 11 patients with mild to moderate acne were randomly divided into two groups. One side received a single 445 nm LED light exposure of 36 J/cm2, while the other side received Curcumin-PDT. The process of Curcumin-PDT involves the application of a mask containing 1 % curcumin for 20 min, followed by exposure to 445 nm LED light at 36 J/cm². The treatment consists of sessions spaced every 3 days, with a total of 2 treatments per week, administered continuously for 2 weeks. Efficacy assessment and comparison were conducted on both groups of patients before treatment and 2 weeks after the last treatment, and adverse reactions were observed and recorded.

RESULTS

At the 2-week follow-up after the last treatment, the total lesion clearance rates for Curcumin-PDT and monotherapy light were 54.7 ± 21.5 % and 28.1 ± 19.9 %, respectively (P = 0.001). The clearance rates for non-inflammatory lesions were 32.3 ± 25.7 % and 21.9 ± 14.0 % for Curcumin-PDT and monotherapy light sides (P = 0.252), while for inflammatory lesions, the clearance rates were 59.3 ± 28.2 % and 36.5 ± 21.6 % (P = 0.013). Both groups experienced mild erythema after treatment, which subsided within 1-2 h. Two patients developed mild localized pigmentation, which self-resolved after 1 month of follow-up. Both groups did not exhibit edema, crust formation, scaling, pigment reduction, or scarring.

CONCLUSION

Curcumin-PDT can be considered a safe and effective method for the treatment of mild to moderate acne.

Photodynamic therapy for severe acne

Acne is an inflammatory cutaneous disease affecting the pilosebaceous unit and hair follicles on the face, neck, back, and chest, with a typical onset in adolescence and, in some cases, persisting into adulthood. Systemic treatments with antibiotics or isotretinoin present many limitations, like antimicrobial resistance phenomena and teratogenicity, which appear more relevant in the pediatric population, both for the treatment-related risks and for the reticence of the parents. Photodynamic therapy (PDT) has already shown encouraging results in the treatment of acne in adult patients, with good aesthetic results compared to other therapies and few side effects. However, its use is still not standardized in the pediatric population. On this topic, we report our experience with PDT in a young patient affected by dorsal acne. After five sessions of ALA-PDT at monthly intervals, a remarkable improvement of the lesions was observed, with the healing of the inflamed nodules and pustules, resolution of the painful symptoms, and an acceptable cosmetic outcome. Our case is paradigmatic of the potentiality of PDT to treat difficult and resistant-to-treatment lesions. Despite being time-consuming, this procedure has been demonstrated to be safe and well-tolerated. Lastly, the therapy is also well accepted by parents, due to its minimal invasiveness and mild side effects, compared to the other therapeutic options.

A Review of the Dermatologic Clinical Applications of Topical Photodynamic Therapy

Topical photodynamic therapy is a widely approved therapy for actinic keratoses and low-risk nonmelanoma skin cancers with a rapidly growing range of emerging indications for other cutaneous diseases. This review summarizes the best-available evidence to provide a clinical update for dermatologists on the approved and emerging indications of photodynamic therapy. The body of evidence suggests that photodynamic therapy is superior or noninferior to other available treatment modalities for actinic keratoses, low-risk basal cell carcinomas, Bowen's disease, skin field cancerization, chemoprevention of keratinocyte carcinomas in organ transplant recipients, photoaging, acne vulgaris, and cutaneous infections including verrucae, onychomycosis, and cutaneous leishmaniasis. There is emerging evidence that photodynamic therapy plays a role in the management of actinic cheilitis, early-stage mycosis fungoides, extramammary Paget disease, lichen sclerosis, and folliculitis decalvans but there are no comparative studies with other active treatment modalities. Common barriers to topical photodynamic therapy include procedural pain, costs, and the time required for treatment delivery. There is significant heterogeneity in the photodynamic therapy protocols reported in the literature, including different photosensitizers, light sources, number of treatments, time between treatments, and use of procedural analgesia. Topical photodynamic therapy should be considered in the management of a spectrum of inflammatory, neoplastic, and infectious dermatoses. However, more comparative research is required to determine its role in the treatment algorithm for these dermatologic conditions and more methodological research is required to optimize photodynamic therapy protocols to improve the tolerability of the procedure for patients.

Targeting Inflammation in Acne: Current Treatments and Future Prospects

Acne is a common, chronic inflammatory condition affecting millions of people worldwide, with significant negative impact on quality of life and mental health. Acne is characterized by comedones, inflammatory papules, pustules, and nodulocystic lesions, with long-lasting sequelae including scarring and dyspigmentation, the latter of which is more common in skin of color. The four main pillars of acne pathophysiology include alteration of sebum production and concentration, hyperkeratinization of the follicular unit, Cutibacterium acnes strains, and an inflammatory immune response. Newer research has provided greater insight into these pathophysiologic categories. This greater understanding of acne pathogenesis has led to numerous new and emerging treatment modalities. These modalities include combinations of existing treatments, repurposing of existing agents historically used for other conditions, new topical treatments, novel antibiotics, topical and oral probiotics, and various procedural devices. This article will provide an overview of emerging treatments of acne and their link to our current and improved understanding of acne pathogenesis.

A Randomized Split-Face Study of Photodynamic Therapy With St. John's Wort and Indole-3-Acetic Acid for the Treatment of Acne

BACKGROUND

St. John's wort (SJW) contains hypericin, a powerful photosensitizer with antimicrobial and anti-inflammatory activities.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of SJW-photodynamic therapy (PDT) with that of indole-3-acetic acid (IAA)-PDT for the treatment of acne and investigate the skin rejuvenating effects of SJW-PDT.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In vitro experiments were conducted to examine the generation of reactive oxygen species and the antimicrobial effects of SJW-PDT. In the prospective, double-blind, split-face, randomized study, 31 patients with facial acne were treated with SJW or IAA with simultaneous illumination of red light and green light.

RESULTS

SJW produces free radicals with visible light irradiation, and the growth of Cutibacterium acnes and Staphylococcus aureus is significantly suppressed. One week after the last treatment, the acne lesion counts were significantly decreased in both groups (56.5% reduction in SJW, p < .001 vs 57.0% in IAA, p < .001). Significant reductions in sebum secretion, erythema index, roughness, and wrinkles were observed in both groups after the treatment. No side effects were observed.

CONCLUSION

SJW-PDT is a simple, safe, and effective treatment option for acne that is also beneficial for skin rejuvenation.

Photodynamic therapy treats acne by altering the composition of the skin microbiota

BACKGROUND

Acne is the eighth-most prevalent inflammatory skin disease with no optimal treatment. Photodynamic therapy (PDT) is an effective treatment for severe acne.

AIMS

The effect of PDT on the composition and diversity of skin microflora in severe acne patients was studied.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 18 patients with severe acne and 8 healthy individuals were selected for this study. Patients were treated with 5-aminolevulinic acid-mediated PDT once a week three times in total; the skin microbiome was measured by 16S ribosomal RNA gene sequencing before and after treatment (1 week after each PDT).

RESULTS

The microflora composition was different between healthy controls and patients, and between patients before and after treatment. Alpha diversity indices were lower in patients than those in control. There were 15 bacterial genera with high relative abundance that had noticeable changes during treatment. At the genus level,particularly Cutibacterium acnes (C. acnes formerly Propionibacterium acnes), there was no statistically significant difference among different group. The abundances of Staphylococcus epidermidis and Staphylococcus aureus were low.

DISCUSSION

The microbial composition is different between severe acne patients acne patients and healthy individuals. The therapeutic efficacy of severe acne treated with PDT is associated with the composition and diversity of skin microbiota.

CONCLUSION

The skin microbial composition changes after PDT treatment. PDT is an effective method for the treatment of severe acne.

Clinical practice Guidelines for 5-Aminolevulinic acid photodynamic therapy for acne vulgaris in China

A variety of evidence suggest that 5-Aminolevulinic acid-based photodynamic therapy (ALA-PDT) is clinically effective in management of acne vulgaris. Several clinical guidelines for acne recommend PDT as an alternative treatment modality for severe acne. However, there is a lack of detailed clinical guideline for PDT in acne treatment. To propose up-to-date, evidence-based and practical recommendations on application of ALA-PDT for acne vulgaris, dermatologists and PDT experts from the Photodynamic Therapy Research Center of the CMA and Photodynamic Therapy Rehabilitation Training Center of CARD achieved consensus and guidelines based on careful evaluation of published literature, expert opinions and experience. ALA-PDT plays a therapeutic role in all four major pathogenesis of acne, and is suitable for moderate to severe acne and scar-prone acne, especially for patients who cannot tolerate or refused systemic antibiotics and isotretinoin. The efficacy and adverse reactions of ALA-PDT are closely related to therapeutic parameters including ALA concentration, incubation time, light source and dosage. Proper pretreatment helps to improve transdermal absorption of ALA and enhances its efficacy. We reviewed and proposed recommended protocols for four PDT procedures including conventional PDT (C-PDT), modified painless PDT (M-PDT), intense pulsed light PDT (IPL-PDT) and daylight PDT (DL-PDT). M-PDT with lower ALA concentration (3-5%), shorter incubation time (30 mins), and lower dose but prolonged illumination (630nm, 40-60 mW/cm², 150 J/cm²) can improve lesions of moderate to severe acne vulgaris effectively with minimal pain and easier manipulation, and thus was recommended by Chinese dermatologists. Lastly, management of adverse reactions were addressed.

Truncal Acne: An Overview

Acne is a relatively common disease of the pilosebaceous units. Many aspects of facial acne have been studied. However, there is limited evidence regarding truncal acne. Truncal acne is also observed in a significant number of patients, but it is often ignored by patients and clinicians. Although the pathogenesis of facial and trunk acne is considered to be similar, the characteristics of the skin on the trunk and face are thought to be different. As truncal acne can cause scars on large areas of the body and adversely affect the quality of life of patients, more attention should be given to patients with truncal acne. Although only a few studies have been published to date, the epidemiology, etiology, severity assessment tool, assessments of the quality of life, and new treatments targeting truncal acne are currently being studied. Therefore, in this review, the latest knowledge on truncal acne will be discussed.

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.

A split-face clinical trial of conventional red-light photodynamic therapy versus daylight photodynamic therapy for acne vulgaris

BACKGROUND

Photodynamic therapy (PDT) is considered an effective treatment for acne vulgaris. A significant drawback is pain during illumination. Daylight PDT (DL-PDT) is more tolerable.

OBJECTIVE

To assess and compare the efficacy and tolerability of DL-PDT and C-PDT for acne vulgaris through a prospective split-face trial.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Fifteen patients underwent 4 treatment sessions at 3-week intervals. First, 5-aminolevulinic acid (ALA) was applied to the entire face, after which the face was divided into 2 symmetrical areas: The right side was exposed to sunlight, and the left half was illuminated with red light. Photographs were obtained and evaluated by two dermatologists blinded to the study protocol. The patients reported side effects and downtime.

RESULTS

There was a statistically significant decrease in the number and percent change of inflammatory and non-inflammatory lesions on both sides. Adverse effects were markedly decreased on the DL-PDT side compared to the C-PDT side (p < .01). The average downtime duration was longer for the C-PDT side (p < .001).

CONCLUSION

DL-PDT was at least as effective as C-PDT with fewer adverse effects and a shorter downtime duration.

Effects and safety of acne vulgaris with external application of herbal medicines: A protocol for systematic review and meta analysis

BACKGROUND

Acne vulgaris (AV) is a common dermatologic disease. The morbidity is increasing annually. External application of herbal medicines (EAHM) has been pervasively used in the therapy of AV. EAHM , as the traditional Chinese therapy, is widely applied in clinical trials for AV. The aim of this review is to systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of EAHM in the therapy for AV.

METHODS

We will conduct an electronic search of 13 databases from their inception to May, 2020, including PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, SpringerLink, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Wanfang China database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, Chinese Scientific Journal Database, as well as China's Conference Papers Database and China Dissertation database. Other valid search strategies will also be retrieved to complete this review. All randomized controlled trials in which EAHM was used for the treatment of AV will be adopted. Two researchers will select eligible studies respectively according to a predefined protocol. Methodological quality will be assessed with Cochrane risk of bias by means of RevMan V.5.3.5 software.

RESULTS

This systematic view will present a high-quality synthesis based on current evidence of EAHM intervention for AV patients.

CONCLUSION

The summary of our systematic view will provide evidence to judge whether EAHM is an effective and safe intervention for AV patients.

Combination of 5-Aminolevulinic acid photodynamic therapy and isotretinoin to treat moderate-to-severe acne

BACKGROUND

In China, photodynamic therapy(PDT) has been widely accepted in the treatment of acne. However, there are few studies on PDT combined with isotretinoin of moderate to severe acne.

AIMS

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of PDT combined with isotretinoin in the treatment of moderate to severe acne.

METHODS

70 cases of moderate and severe acne patients were randomly divided into PDT group and combination group. In combination group, patients were treated with PDT, once/2weeks, for 3 times; and oral isotretinoin, 10 mg twice a day for 3 months. The PDT group was treated with PDT alone. The skin lesions were counted before treatment and in the 4th, 6th, 8th, and 12th weeks to evaluate the clinical efficacy. Adverse reactions during the treatment were recorded. We monitored the liver function of the combination group once a month. The recurrence rate was recorded 6 months after treatment.

RESULTS

A total of 67 patients completed the study. The effective rates of combination group in the 4th, 6th, 8th, and 12th weeks of treatment were 28.6 %, 71.4 %, 91.4 %, and 94.1 %, respectively; the effective rates of PDT group in the 4th, 6th, 8th, and 12th weeks of treatment were 22.9 %, 54.3 %, 74.3 %, and 78.8 %, respectively; the effective rates of two groups were statistically significant in the 6th, 8th, and 12th weeks of treatment (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in pain score between two groups during the photodynamic therapy(P＞0.05). Adverse reactions, such as erythema and pustule during photodynamic therapy in both groups were tolerable. The pigmentation subsided in about 3 months. The recurrence rate of combination group was significantly lower than that of PDT group(7% VS 24 %,P＜0.05).

CONCLUSION

PDT combined with isotretinoin has higher effective rate and lower recurrence rate than single PDT, and is a choice for the treatment of moderate to severe acne.

Efficacy of IPL therapy for the treatment of acne vulgaris: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Intense pulse light (IPL) has been adopted by numerous patients. However, no existing study has analyzed the efficiency and safety of IPL in the treatment of acne vulgaris.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficiency and safety of IPL in the treatment of acne vulgaris.

METHODS

Electronic databases, including Embase, Cochrane Library, and MEDLINE, were retrieved to identify related studies. In this study, the primary and secondary outcomes were the mean percentage reduction of inflammatory acne lesion improvement (MPRI) and the mean percentage reduction of noninflammatory acne lesion improvement (NMPRI), respectively. Between-study heterogeneities were assessed using the I ²  statistic.

RESULTS

Eight randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including 450 patients were enrolled into the present analysis. With regard to MPRI, the result of IPL group was poorer than that of control group [mean deviation (MD) = -4.37 (95% confidence interval CI: -7.83, -0.91), P = .01]. In addition, the efficiency of IPL was poor among African and Asian populations [MD = -3.87 (95% CI: -7.36, -0.37), P = .03; MD = -28.37 (95% CI: -52.26, -4.18), P = .02]. Meanwhile, difference in the efficiency between IPL and 1064 nm Nd:YAG was not statistically significant [MD = -3.25 (95% CI: -7.01, -0.51). P = .09]. Besides, the efficiency of IPL was lower than that of PDL [MD = -28.37 (95% CI: -52.26, -4.18), P = .02]. There was no statistically significant difference in the efficiency between IPL and other treatments for NMPRI. With regard to adverse effects, erythema (46.73%) and pain (39.13%) were the most common.

CONCLUSIONS

IPL is not so efficient as other supplementary therapies. For inflammatory acne lesions, the efficiency of IPL is poorer than that of PDT. Difference in geographic regions may affect the IPL efficiency. However, the results obtained in this study should be cautiously interpreted due to the heterogeneities and the lack of studies with a large sample size.