Treatment of Atopic Dermatitis Using a Full-Body Blue Light Device (AD-Blue): Protocol of a Randomized Controlled Trial

Full-body blue light irradiation as treatment for atopic dermatitis: a randomized sham-controlled clinical trial (AD-Blue)

BACKGROUND

Visible blue light (wavelength 400-495 nm) is a promising new treatment option for both psoriasis and atopic dermatitis (AD). Whilst previous clinical trials featured various devices and blue light at a variety of wavelengths, none of these interventions were challenged in objective clinical criteria.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Eighty-seven patients diagnosed with AD were enrolled in AD-Blue, an international, prospective, double-blinded, three-armed (415 nm vs. 450 nm vs. sham control), randomized trial designed to investigate the safety and efficacy of prototype full-body blue light devices.

RESULTS

Full-body irradiation with 450 nm blue light but not 415 nm had a significant impact on itch (Itch-VAS, -1.6 ± 2.3; p  =  0.023 vs. sham irradiation). PO-SCORAD values also decreased significantly in response to irradiation at 415 nm (-11.5 ± 18.4; p = 0.028 vs. sham irradiation). None of the other outcome measures (EASI, SCORAD, IGA, DLQI) changed significantly. No safety signals were observed. Evaluation of skin transcriptomes, cytokine levels in serum, and ELISpots from peripheral blood mononuclear cells isolated from a subset of patients revealed moderate decreases in IL-31 in response to irradiation with blue light.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite its favorable safety profile and moderate reductions in itch and IL-31 levels, full-body blue light irradiation did not lead to an amelioration of any of the objective measures of AD.

Ganzkörper-Blaulichtbestrahlung zur Behandlung der atopischen Dermatitis: eine randomisierte, placebokontrollierte klinische Studie (AD-Blue)

Hintergrund

Sichtbares blaues Licht (Wellenlänge 400–495 nm) ist eine vielversprechende neue Behandlungsoption sowohl für Psoriasis als auch für atopische Dermatitis (AD). In früheren klinischen Studien wurden zwar verschiedene Geräte und blaues Licht mit unterschiedlichen Wellenlängen eingesetzt, aber keine dieser Prozeduren wurde anhand objektiver klinischer Kriterien geprüft.

Patienten und Methodik

87 Patienten mit AD wurden in die AD‐Blue‐Studie aufgenommen, eine internationale, prospektive, doppelblinde, dreiarmige (415 nm vs. 450 nm vs. Placebo), randomisierte Studie zur Untersuchung der Sicherheit und Wirksamkeit von Prototypen von Ganzkörper‐Blaulicht‐Bestrahlungsgeräten.

Ergebnisse

Die Ganzkörper‐Bestrahlung mit 450 nm blauem Licht, aber nicht mit 415 nm, hatte einen signifikant positiven Einfluss auf den Juckreiz (Pruritus‐VAS, –1,6 ± 2,3; p = 0,023 gegenüber der Placebobestrahlung). Die PO‐SCORAD‐Werte sanken ebenfalls signifikant als Reaktion auf die Bestrahlung bei 415 nm (–11,5 ± 18,4; p = 0,028 im Vergleich zur Placebobestrahlung). Keines der anderen Ergebnisse (EASI, SCORAD, IGA, DLQI) veränderte sich signifikant. Es wurden keine Sicherheitsprobleme beobachtet. Die Auswertung von Hauttranskriptomdaten, Zytokinspiegeln im Serum und ELISpots aus mononukleären Zellen des peripheren Blutes, die von einer Untergruppe von Patienten isoliert wurden, ergab eine moderate Abnahme von IL‐31 als Reaktion auf die Bestrahlung mit blauem Licht.

Schlussfolgerungen

Trotz des günstigen Sicherheitsprofils und der mäßigen Verringerung von Pruritus und IL‐31‐Spiegel führte die Ganzkörper‐Blaulichtbestrahlung bei AD zu keiner Verbesserung der objektiven Parameter zu Krankheitsschwere.

Phototherapy for atopic eczema

BACKGROUND

Atopic eczema (AE), also known as atopic dermatitis, is a chronic inflammatory skin condition that causes significant burden. Phototherapy is sometimes used to treat AE when topical treatments, such as corticosteroids, are insufficient or poorly tolerated.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of phototherapy for treating AE.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov to January 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials in adults or children with any subtype or severity of clinically diagnosed AE. Eligible comparisons were any type of phototherapy versus other forms of phototherapy or any other treatment, including placebo or no treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodology. For key findings, we used RoB 2.0 to assess bias, and GRADE to assess certainty of the evidence. Primary outcomes were physician-assessed signs and patient-reported symptoms. Secondary outcomes were Investigator Global Assessment (IGA), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), safety (measured as withdrawals due to adverse events), and long-term control.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 32 trials with 1219 randomised participants, aged 5 to 83 years (mean: 28 years), with an equal number of males and females. Participants were recruited mainly from secondary care dermatology clinics, and study duration was, on average, 13 weeks (range: 10 days to one year). We assessed risk of bias for all key outcomes as having some concerns or high risk, due to missing data, inappropriate analysis, or insufficient information to assess selective reporting. Assessed interventions included: narrowband ultraviolet B (NB-UVB; 13 trials), ultraviolet A1 (UVA1; 6 trials), broadband ultraviolet B (BB-UVB; 5 trials), ultraviolet AB (UVAB; 2 trials), psoralen plus ultraviolet A (PUVA; 2 trials), ultraviolet A (UVA; 1 trial), unspecified ultraviolet B (UVB; 1 trial), full spectrum light (1 trial), Saalmann selective ultraviolet phototherapy (SUP) cabin (1 trial), saltwater bath plus UVB (balneophototherapy; 1 trial), and excimer laser (1 trial). Comparators included placebo, no treatment, another phototherapy, topical treatment, or alternative doses of the same treatment. Results for key comparisons are summarised (for scales, lower scores are better): NB-UVB versus placebo/no treatment There may be a larger reduction in physician-assessed signs with NB-UVB compared to placebo after 12 weeks of treatment (mean difference (MD) -9.4, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.62 to -15.18; 1 trial, 41 participants; scale: 0 to 90). Two trials reported little difference between NB-UVB and no treatment (37 participants, four to six weeks of treatment); another reported improved signs with NB-UVB versus no treatment (11 participants, nine weeks of treatment). NB-UVB may increase the number of people reporting reduced itch after 12 weeks of treatment compared to placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.72, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.69; 1 trial, 40 participants). Another trial reported very little difference in itch severity with NB-UVB (25 participants, four weeks of treatment). The number of participants with moderate to greater global improvement may be higher with NB-UVB than placebo after 12 weeks of treatment (RR 2.81, 95% CI 1.10 to 7.17; 1 trial, 41 participants). NB-UVB may not affect rates of withdrawal due to adverse events. No withdrawals were reported in one trial of NB-UVB versus placebo (18 participants, nine weeks of treatment). In two trials of NB-UVB versus no treatment, each reported one withdrawal per group (71 participants, 8 to 12 weeks of treatment). We judged that all reported outcomes were supported with low-certainty evidence, due to risk of bias and imprecision. No trials reported HRQoL. NB-UVB versus UVA1 We judged the evidence for NB-UVB compared to UVA1 to be very low certainty for all outcomes, due to risk of bias and imprecision. There was no evidence of a difference in physician-assessed signs after six weeks (MD -2.00, 95% CI -8.41 to 4.41; 1 trial, 46 participants; scale: 0 to 108), or patient-reported itch after six weeks (MD 0.3, 95% CI -1.07 to 1.67; 1 trial, 46 participants; scale: 0 to 10). Two split-body trials (20 participants, 40 sides) also measured these outcomes, using different scales at seven to eight weeks; they reported lower scores with NB-UVB. One trial reported HRQoL at six weeks (MD 2.9, 95% CI -9.57 to 15.37; 1 trial, 46 participants; scale: 30 to 150). One split-body trial reported no withdrawals due to adverse events over 12 weeks (13 participants). No trials reported IGA. NB-UVB versus PUVA We judged the evidence for NB-UVB compared to PUVA (8-methoxypsoralen in bath plus UVA) to be very low certainty for all reported outcomes, due to risk of bias and imprecision. There was no evidence of a difference in physician-assessed signs after six weeks (64.1% reduction with NB-UVB versus 65.7% reduction with PUVA; 1 trial, 10 participants, 20 sides). There was no evidence of a difference in marked improvement or complete remission after six weeks (odds ratio (OR) 1.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 7.89; 1 trial, 9/10 participants with both treatments). One split-body trial reported no withdrawals due to adverse events in 10 participants over six weeks. The trials did not report patient-reported symptoms or HRQoL. UVA1 versus PUVA There was very low-certainty evidence, due to serious risk of bias and imprecision, that PUVA (oral 5-methoxypsoralen plus UVA) reduced physician-assessed signs more than UVA1 after three weeks (MD 11.3, 95% CI -0.21 to 22.81; 1 trial, 40 participants; scale: 0 to 103). The trial did not report patient-reported symptoms, IGA, HRQoL, or withdrawals due to adverse events. There were no eligible trials for the key comparisons of UVA1 or PUVA compared with no treatment. Adverse events Reported adverse events included low rates of phototoxic reaction, severe irritation, UV burn, bacterial superinfection, disease exacerbation, and eczema herpeticum.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to placebo or no treatment, NB-UVB may improve physician-rated signs, patient-reported symptoms, and IGA after 12 weeks, without a difference in withdrawal due to adverse events. Evidence for UVA1 compared to NB-UVB or PUVA, and NB-UVB compared to PUVA was very low certainty. More information is needed on the safety and effectiveness of all aspects of phototherapy for treating AE.

Blue light-emitting diodes in hair regrowth: the first prospective study

Different studies highlight photo-receptors' presence on the hair follicle that seems to be capable of eliciting hair growth. This study aims to demonstrate blue light's effectiveness on hair growth in patients affected by androgenetic alopecia. Twenty patients enrolled at Magna Graecia University Unit of Dermatology, affected by androgenetic alopecia, were treated with a blue LED light device at 417 ± 10 nm, fluence of 120 J/cm², and power intensity of 60 mW/cm² ± 20%. The treatments were performed twice a week for ten consecutive weeks. Patients were evaluated before and 1 month after the end of therapy clinically using standardized global photographs and dermoscopically estimating hair density and hair shaft width. An increase in hair density and hair shaft width was recorded in 90% of patients after 10 weeks. Photographic improvement was noted in 80% of the patients. No serious adverse events have been reported. The only side effect consisted in a darkening of the hair, perhaps due to melanic stimulation due to blue light in 2 patients. Blue light therapy is a promising therapy for patients affected by androgenetic alopecia and other diseases characterized by hair loss. Further studies will be necessary to confirm the findings of this preliminary study.

Various biological effects of solar radiation on skin and their mechanisms: implications for phototherapy

The skin protects our body from various external factors, such as chemical and physical stimuli, microorganisms, and sunlight. Sunlight is a representative environmental factor that considerably influences the physiological activity of our bodies. The molecular mechanisms and detrimental effects of ultraviolet rays (UVR) on skin have been thoroughly investigated. Chronic exposure to UVR generally causes skin damage and eventually induces wrinkle formation and reduced elasticity of the skin. Several studies have shown that infrared rays (IR) also lead to the breakdown of collagen fibers in the skin. However, several reports have demonstrated that the appropriate use of UVR or IR can have beneficial effects on skin-related diseases. Additionally, it has been revealed that visible light of different wavelengths has various biological effects on the skin. Interestingly, several recent studies have reported that photoreceptors are also expressed in the skin, similar to those in the eyes.

Based on these data, I discuss the various physiological effects of sunlight on the skin and provide insights on the use of phototherapy, which uses a specific wavelength of sunlight as a non-invasive method, to improve skin-related disorders.

Advances in phototherapy for psoriasis and atopic dermatitis

Introduction: Phototherapy has long been used for the treatment of inflammatory skin diseases, such as psoriasis and atopic dermatitis. The most frequent treatment approach utilizes ultraviolet (UV) light, however, recently, different lasers and low-level light therapies (LLLT) emitting wavelengths in the spectrum of the visible light have also been tried for the treatment of inflammatory skin diseases with variable success.Areas covered: This review provides an update on the different forms of phototherapy used for the treatment of psoriasis and atopic dermatitis. The proposed mechanism of action of the different phototherapeutical approaches are covered, including the immunosuppressive effect of UV light, the anti-inflammatory effect of vascular lasers and the LLLT induced photobiomodulation. The clinical efficacy of the different treatment options is also discussed.Expert opinion: Based on the efficacy and safety, NB-UVB represents the gold standard for treating psoriasis and atopic dermatitis. The UVB excimer laser and excimer lamp might be the best option for clearing localized therapy-resistant lesions. Home UV phototherapy systems might promote treatment adherence and better compliance of the patients. Vascular lasers, IPLs and LLLT, however, can not currently be recommended for the treatment of inflammatory skin diseases because of the lack of well-controlled studies.