[A prospective, randomized, open and comparative study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of blue light treatment versus a topical benzoyl peroxide 5% formulation in patients with acne grade II and III]

Effect of Blue Light on Acne Vulgaris: A Systematic Review

Acne is a dermatosis that affects almost 90% of the adolescent population worldwide and its treatment is performed with retinoids, antimicrobials, acids, and topical or systemic antibiotics. Side effects such as skin irritation in addition to microbial resistance to antibiotics are the main side effects found. Phototherapy with blue light is being used as an alternative treatment. Our objective was to analyze the use of blue light to treat inflammatory acne. We conducted a systematic literature review, following the recommendation PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and MetaAnalyses), including in the sample randomized clinical trial studies that compared blue light with another intervention as control. The research was carried out in the PUBMED and WEB of SCIENCE databases and the methodological quality of the studies evaluated were made by the Cochrane Collaboration Bias Risk Scale. After the exclusion of duplicates, the titles and abstracts of 81 articles were evaluated, and 50 articles were selected for full reading, including in the review at the end 8 articles. Studies have shown significant improvements in the overall picture of acne. It is concluded that despite the great potential in its use in the treatment of acne, there is a need for more detailed trials on the effect of blue light on the treatment of inflammatory acne.

Blue-Light Therapy for Acne Vulgaris: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

Antibiotic use in acne treatment raises concerns about increased resistance, necessitating alternatives. We assessed the effectiveness of blue-light therapy for acne.

METHODS

We analyzed randomized controlled trials comparing blue light with nonlight interventions. Studies included people of any age, sex, and acne severity, in any setting, and reported on investigator-assessed change in acne severity, patients' assessment of improvement, change in inflammatory or noninflammatory lesions, and adverse events. Where data were sufficient, mean differences were calculated.

RESULTS

Eighteen references (14 trials) including 698 participants were included. Most of the trials were small and short (<12 weeks) and had high risk of bias. Investigator-assessed improvement was quantitatively reported in 5 trials, of which 3 reported significantly greater improvement in blue light than comparator, and 2 reported improvement. Patients' assessments of improvement were quantitatively reported by 2 trials, favoring blue light. Mean difference in the mean number of noninflammatory lesions was nonsignificant between groups at weeks 4, 8, and 10-12 and overall (mean difference [MD] = 3.47; 95% CI, -0.76 to 7.71; P = 0.11). Mean difference in the mean number of inflammatory lesions was likewise nonsignificant between groups at any of the time points and overall (MD = 0.16; 95% CI, -0.99 to 1.31; P = 0.78). Adverse events were generally mild and favored blue light or did not significantly differ between groups.

CONCLUSION

Methodological and reporting limitations of existing evidence limit conclusions about the effectiveness of blue light for acne. Clinicians and patients should therefore consider the balance between its benefits and adverse events, as well as costs.

Can light-based approaches overcome antimicrobial resistance?

The relentless rise of antibiotic resistance is considered one of the most serious problems facing mankind. This mini-review will cover three cutting-edge approaches that use light-based techniques to kill antibiotic-resistant microbial species, and treat localized infections. First, we will discuss antimicrobial photodynamic inactivation using rationally designed photosensitizes combined with visible light, with the added possibility of strong potentiation by inorganic salts such as potassium iodide. Second, the use of blue and violet light alone that activates endogenous photoactive porphyrins within the microbial cells. Third, it is used for "safe UVC" at wavelengths between 200 nm and 230 nm that can kill microbial cells without damaging host mammalian cells. We have gained evidence that all these approaches can kill multidrug resistant bacteria in vitro, and they do not induce themselves any resistance, and moreover can treat animal models of localized infections caused by resistant species that can be monitored by noninvasive bioluminescence imaging. Light-based antimicrobial approaches are becoming a growing translational part of anti-infective treatments in the current age of resistance.

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.

Clinical comparison of salicylic acid peel and LED-Laser phototherapy for the treatment of Acne vulgaris in teenagers

Acne vulgaris treatments usually cause sensitivity, teratogenicity and bacterial resistance. Investigations of other therapeutic techniques, such as phototherapy, are highly relevant. Thus, we compared the effectiveness of two Acne vulgaris treatments in adolescents: peeling with salicylic acid (SA) and phototherapy. Teens were randomly divided into: group I, treatment with SA peels (10%) and group II, treatment with phototherapy (blue LED and red laser lights). Photographs were taken before and after ten sessions of each treatment, carried out weekly, and compared. To compare the differences between the treatments, the Student t-test was used. P values < 0.05 were considered significant. Both techniques are effective therapies for the treatment of acne in teenagers since the number of comedones, papules and pustules decreased significantly at the end of the session. However, when the two treatments were compared, phototherapy showed a significant difference in reducing the number of pustules. The combined use of red and blue lights due to their anti-inflammatory and wound-healing properties is a more efficient alternative for treating Acne vulgaris in relation to SA and proves more reliable and without side effects, improving the adolescents' skin health.

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.

Optimizing Non-Antibiotic Treatments for Patients with Acne: A Review

Acne is a very common non-infectious skin condition that is frequently treated in dermatological practices. Because acne is often chronic and may persist for years, safe and effective long-term maintenance therapy is often required. Given the increasing frequency of antibiotic-resistant bacteria and the gravity of the consequences of this trend, it behooves dermatologists to maximize use of non-antimicrobial therapy when treating acne. In this review of the literature we present data regarding the efficacy and appropriate use of non-antimicrobial treatments for acne. A variety of topical and oral treatment options exist that can be used in a step-wise manner according to the patients’ severity and therapeutic response. Non-antimicrobial treatments can be highly efficacious at controlling acne, especially when used as maintenance therapy. While antibiotics have a role in acne treatment, they should not be used as monotherapy, and lengthy courses of antibiotic use are discouraged.

Light based anti-infectives: ultraviolet C irradiation, photodynamic therapy, blue light, and beyond

Owing to the worldwide increase in antibiotic resistance, researchers are investigating alternative anti-infective strategies to which it is supposed microorganisms will be unable to develop resistance. Prominent among these strategies, is a group of approaches which rely on light to deliver the killing blow. As is well known, ultraviolet light, particularly UVC (200-280 nm), is germicidal, but it has not been much developed as an anti-infective approach until recently, when it was realized that the possible adverse effects to host tissue were relatively minor compared to its high activity in killing pathogens. Photodynamic therapy is the combination of non-toxic photosensitizing dyes with harmless visible light that together produce abundant destructive reactive oxygen species (ROS). Certain cationic dyes or photosensitizers have good specificity for binding to microbial cells while sparing host mammalian cells and can be used for treating many localized infections, both superficial and even deep-seated by using fiber optic delivered light. Many microbial cells are highly sensitive to killing by blue light (400-470 nm) due to accumulation of naturally occurring photosensitizers such as porphyrins and flavins. Near infrared light has also been shown to have antimicrobial effects against certain species. Clinical applications of these technologies include skin, dental, wound, stomach, nasal, toenail and other infections which are amenable to effective light delivery.