Daylight photodynamic therapy with methyl aminolevulinate cream is as effective as conventional photodynamic therapy with blue light in the treatment of actinic keratosis: a controlled randomized intra-individual study.
Journal
Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV
ISSN: 1468-3083
Titre abrégé: J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9216037
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Aug 2020
Aug 2020
Historique:
received:
26
08
2019
accepted:
17
12
2019
pubmed:
20
1
2020
medline:
15
5
2021
entrez:
20
1
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
We know the efficacy of daylight phototherapy dynamic (DL-PDT) in the treatment of actinic keratosis (AK). But the almost studies have compared daylight with red light using methyl aminolevulinate cream and not with blue light. PDT with blue light is another conventional PDT that is effective in the treatment of AKs. The aim of this study is to assess the efficacy and the safety of DL-PDT vs. PDT in blue light in the treatment of AKs. This randomized, controlled, intra-individual efficacy and safety study enrolled 26 subjects. AKs on the face/scalp were treated once, with DL-PDT on one side and c-PDT on the contralateral side. Primary endpoints for DL-PDT at week 12 were efficacy with clearance of AKs and safety with assessment of pain. Lesions with complete response 12 weeks after one treatment session were followed until week 24. More than 1000 AK were studied. At week 12, the raw number of disappeared AK lesions at 3-month follow-up was 19.6 (±6.0) for DL-PDT and 20.0 (±6.9) for c-PDT with P = 0.8460 (90.5% vs. 94.2% of AK disappearance, respectively). The response was maintained at 6 months (90.0% and 94.6% of AK reduction, respectively). DL-PDT was nearly painless than c-PDT with light blue: 1.2 vs. 5.1, respectively (P < 0.0001). Daylight-PDT seems as effective as c-PDT with light blue and DL-PDT is less painful. The response of DL-PDT was sustainable until 6 months.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
We know the efficacy of daylight phototherapy dynamic (DL-PDT) in the treatment of actinic keratosis (AK). But the almost studies have compared daylight with red light using methyl aminolevulinate cream and not with blue light. PDT with blue light is another conventional PDT that is effective in the treatment of AKs.
OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study is to assess the efficacy and the safety of DL-PDT vs. PDT in blue light in the treatment of AKs.
METHODS
METHODS
This randomized, controlled, intra-individual efficacy and safety study enrolled 26 subjects. AKs on the face/scalp were treated once, with DL-PDT on one side and c-PDT on the contralateral side. Primary endpoints for DL-PDT at week 12 were efficacy with clearance of AKs and safety with assessment of pain. Lesions with complete response 12 weeks after one treatment session were followed until week 24.
RESULTS
RESULTS
More than 1000 AK were studied. At week 12, the raw number of disappeared AK lesions at 3-month follow-up was 19.6 (±6.0) for DL-PDT and 20.0 (±6.9) for c-PDT with P = 0.8460 (90.5% vs. 94.2% of AK disappearance, respectively). The response was maintained at 6 months (90.0% and 94.6% of AK reduction, respectively). DL-PDT was nearly painless than c-PDT with light blue: 1.2 vs. 5.1, respectively (P < 0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Daylight-PDT seems as effective as c-PDT with light blue and DL-PDT is less painful. The response of DL-PDT was sustainable until 6 months.
Substances chimiques
Ointments
0
Photosensitizing Agents
0
Aminolevulinic Acid
88755TAZ87
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1730-1735Subventions
Organisme : Galderma
Organisme : CHU of Limoges
Informations de copyright
© 2020 European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
Références
Wiegell SR, Haedersdal M, Philipsen PA, Eriksen P, Enk CD, Wulf HC. Continuous activation of PpIX by daylight is as effective as and less painful than conventional photodynamic therapy for actinic keratoses; a randomized, controlled, single-blinded study. Br J Dermatol 2008; 158: 740-746.
Rubel DM, Spelman L, Murrell DF et al. Daylight PDT with methyl aminolevulinate cream as a convenient, similarly effective, nearly painless alternative to conventional PDT in actinic keratosis treatment: a randomised controlled trial. Br J Dermatol 2014; 171: 1164-1171.
Lacour J-P, Ulrich C, Gilaberte Y et al. Daylight photodynamic therapy with methyl aminolevulinate cream is effective and nearly painless in treating actinic keratoses: a randomised, investigator-blinded, controlled, phase III study throughout Europe. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2015; 29: 2342-2348.
Wiegell SR, Fabricius S, Heydenreich J et al. Weather conditions and daylight-mediated photodynamic therapy: protoporphyrin IX-weighted daylight doses measured in six geographical locations. Br J Dermatol 2013; 168: 186-191.
Morton CA, Wulf HC, Szeimies RM et al. Practical approach to the use of daylight photodynamic therapy with topical methyl aminolevulinate for actinic keratosis: a European consensus. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2015; 29: 1718-1723.
Piffaretti F, Zellweger M, Kasraee B et al. Correlation between protoporphyrin IX fluorescence intensity, photobleaching, pain and clinical outcome of actinic keratosis treated by photodynamic therapy. Dermatology 2013; 227: 214-225.
Vignion-Dewalle A-S, Betrouni N, Tylcz J-B, Vermandel M, Mortier L, Mordon S. Comparison of three light doses in the photodynamic treatment of actinic keratosis using mathematical modeling. J Biomed Opt 2015; 20: 58001.
Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. Int J Surg 2011; 9: 672-677.
Wiegell SR, Heydenreich J, Fabricius S, Wulf HC. Continuous ultra-low-intensity artificial daylight is not as effective as red LED light in photodynamic therapy of multiple actinic keratoses. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed 2011; 27: 280-285.
Wiegell SR, Fabricius S, Stender IM et al. A randomized, multicentre study of directed daylight exposure times of 1½ vs. 2½ h in daylight-mediated photodynamic therapy with methyl aminolaevulinate in patients with multiple thin actinic keratoses of the face and scalp. Br J Dermatol 2011; 164: 1083-1090.
Fai D, Romano I, Fai C, Cassano N, Vena GA. Daylight photodynamic therapy with methyl aminolaevulinate in patients with actinic keratoses: a preliminary experience in southern Italy. G Ital Dermatol Venereol 2014; 151: 154-159.
Fargnoli MC, Piccioni A, Neri L, Tambone S, Pellegrini C, Peris K. Long-term efficacy and safety of daylight photodynamic therapy with methyl amninolevulinate for actinic keratosis of the face and scalp. Eur J Dermatol 2017; 27: 89-91.
Fargnoli MC, Piccioni A, Neri L, Tambone S, Pellegrini C, Peris K. Conventional vs. daylight methyl aminolevulinate photodynamic therapy for actinic keratosis of the face and scalp: an intra-patient, prospective, comparison study in Italy. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2015; 29: 1926-1932.
Sotiriou E, Evangelou G, Papadavid E et al. Conventional vs. daylight photodynamic therapy for patients with actinic keratosis on face and scalp: 12-month follow-up results of a randomized, intra-individual comparative analysis. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2018; 32: 595-600.
Neittaanmäki-Perttu N, Grönroos M, Tani T, Snellman E. Long-term outcome of daylight photodynamic therapy with amino-5-laevulinate nanoemulsion vs. methyl-5-aminolaevulinate for actinic keratoses. Acta Derm Venereol 2016; 96: 712-713.
Wiegell SR. Update on photodynamic treatment for actinic keratosis. Curr Probl Dermatol 2015; 46: 122-128.