Use of Optical Fiber Imported Intra-Tissue Photodynamic Therapy for Treatment of Moderate to Severe Acne Vulgaris

Photodynamic therapy with light emitting fabrics: a review

Photodynamic therapy is a powerful tool in the localized and selective treatment of dermatologic diseases, such as actinic keratosis, acne vulgaris, Bowen's disease and basal cell carcinoma. The success of photodynamic therapy is mainly attributed to the development of flexible light sources for homogenous and reproducible illumination during clinical studies. The essential requirement for this therapy includes, a suitable photosensitizer, presence of oxygen and a light of specific wavelength and intensity. The use of light emitting fabric comprising of optical fibers provides an exciting and an efficient way to transfer light directly to the skin uniformly on the infected body parts. As the optical fibers can transmit light from 400 to 1200 nm it is possible to combine light emitting fabric with laser sources for medical applications. This review focusses on the challenges and recent developments in the use of light emitting fabric for photodynamic therapy in clinical studies and its future perspectives.

Efficacy of photodynamic therapy combined with minocycline for treatment of moderate to severe facial acne vulgaris and influence on quality of life

BACKGROUND

Acne vulgaris is a prevalent skin disorder impairing both physical and psychosocial health. This study was designed to investigate the effectiveness of photodynamic therapy (PDT) combined with minocycline in moderate to severe facial acne and influence on quality of life (QOL).

METHODS

Ninety-five patients with moderate to severe facial acne (Investigator Global Assessment [IGA] score 3-4) were randomly treated with PDT and minocycline (n = 48) or minocycline alone (n = 47). All patients took minocycline hydrochloride 100 mg/d for 4 weeks, whereas patients in the minocycline plus PDT group also received 4 times PDT treatment 1 week apart. IGA score, lesion counts, Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), and safety evaluation were performed before treatment and at 2, 4, 6, and 8 weeks after enrolment.

RESULTS

There were no statistically significant differences in characteristics between 2 treatment groups at baseline. Minocycline plus PDT treatment led to a greater mean percentage reduction from baseline in lesion counts versus minocycline alone at 8 weeks for both inflammatory (-74.4% vs -53.3%; P < .001) and noninflammatory lesions (-61.7% vs -42.4%; P < .001). More patients treated with minocycline plus PDT achieved IGA score <2 at study end (week 8: 30/48 vs 20/47; P < .05). Patients treated with minocycline plus PDT got significant lower DLQI at 8 weeks (4.4 vs 6.3; P < .001). Adverse events were mild and manageable.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with minocycline alone, the combination of PDT with minocycline significantly improved clinical efficacy and QOL in moderate to severe facial acne patients.

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.

The potential of photodynamic therapy (PDT)-Experimental investigations and clinical use

Photodynamic therapy (PDT) is an intensively studied part of medicine based on free radicals. These reactive species, extremely harmful for whole human organism, are used for eradication numerous diseases. Specific structure of ill tissues causes accumulation free radicals inside them without attack remaining healthy tissues. A rapid development of medicine and scientific research has led to extension of PDT towards treatment many diseases such as cancer, herpes, acne and based on antimicrobials. The presented review article is focused on the aforementioned disorders with accurate analysis of the newest available scientific achievements. The discussed cases explicitly indicate on high efficacy of the therapy. In most cases, free radicals turned out to be solution of many afflictions. Photodynamic therapy can be considered as promising treatment with comparable effectiveness but without side effects characteristic for chemotherapy.

Photodynamic therapy as an antifungal treatment

Photodynamic therapy (PDT) involves the systemic or topical application of a photosensitizer (PS), alongside the selective illumination of the target lesion with light of an appropriate wavelength, in order to promote localized oxidative photodamage and subsequent cell death. Numerous studies have demonstrated that PDT is highly effective in the destruction of fungi in vitro. The mechanism underlying the effects of PDT results from the photons of visible light of an appropriate wavelength interacting with the intracellular molecules of the PS. Reactive species are produced as a result of the oxidative stress caused by the interaction between the visible light and the biological tissue. At present, no antifungal treatment based on PDT has been licensed. However, antifungal PDT is emerging as an area of interest for research.