Assessment of adverse events for a home-use intense pulsed light hair removal device using postmarketing surveillance.
adverse events
home-use device
intense pulsed light (IPL)
postmarketing surveillance
Journal
Lasers in surgery and medicine
ISSN: 1096-9101
Titre abrégé: Lasers Surg Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8007168
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 2023
04 2023
Historique:
revised:
18
02
2023
received:
20
10
2022
accepted:
23
02
2023
medline:
13
4
2023
pubmed:
9
3
2023
entrez:
8
3
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Home-use intense pulsed light (IPL) hair removal devices are convenient for consumers. Consumer safety associated with home-use IPL devices, however, remains a subject of interest. In this descriptive analysis, we assessed the most commonly reported adverse events (AEs) for a home-use IPL device from postmarketing surveillance and qualitatively compared these with AEs from clinical studies and medical device reports of home-use IPL treatments. For this analysis of voluntary reports, we queried a distributor's postmarketing database for IPL devices for the period beginning January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2021. All sources of comments, for example, phone, e-mail, company-sponsored web sites, were included in the analysis. AE data were coded according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) terminology. Also, we conducted a PubMed search to identify AE profiles from existing literature on home-use IPL devices and we searched the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database for reports on home-use IPL devices. These results were qualitatively compared to the data in the postmarketing surveillance database. A total of 1692 cases involving IPL were identified from voluntary reports of AEs between 2016 and 2021. The shipment-adjusted reporting rate for AE cases (number of AE cases/100,000 shipped IPL devices) was 67/100,000 during this 6-year period. The most commonly reported AEs were pain of skin 27.8% (470/1692), "thermal burn" 18.7% (316/1692), and erythema 16.0% (271/1692). Among the top 25 AEs reported, no unexpected health events were observed. The reported AEs were qualitatively similar to the pattern seen in clinical studies and the MAUDE database associated with such home-use IPL treatments. This is the first such report documenting AEs for home-use IPL hair removal from a postmarketing surveillance program. These data are supportive of the safety of such home-use low-fluence IPL technology.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
Home-use intense pulsed light (IPL) hair removal devices are convenient for consumers. Consumer safety associated with home-use IPL devices, however, remains a subject of interest. In this descriptive analysis, we assessed the most commonly reported adverse events (AEs) for a home-use IPL device from postmarketing surveillance and qualitatively compared these with AEs from clinical studies and medical device reports of home-use IPL treatments.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
For this analysis of voluntary reports, we queried a distributor's postmarketing database for IPL devices for the period beginning January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2021. All sources of comments, for example, phone, e-mail, company-sponsored web sites, were included in the analysis. AE data were coded according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) terminology. Also, we conducted a PubMed search to identify AE profiles from existing literature on home-use IPL devices and we searched the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database for reports on home-use IPL devices. These results were qualitatively compared to the data in the postmarketing surveillance database.
RESULTS
A total of 1692 cases involving IPL were identified from voluntary reports of AEs between 2016 and 2021. The shipment-adjusted reporting rate for AE cases (number of AE cases/100,000 shipped IPL devices) was 67/100,000 during this 6-year period. The most commonly reported AEs were pain of skin 27.8% (470/1692), "thermal burn" 18.7% (316/1692), and erythema 16.0% (271/1692). Among the top 25 AEs reported, no unexpected health events were observed. The reported AEs were qualitatively similar to the pattern seen in clinical studies and the MAUDE database associated with such home-use IPL treatments.
CONCLUSION
This is the first such report documenting AEs for home-use IPL hair removal from a postmarketing surveillance program. These data are supportive of the safety of such home-use low-fluence IPL technology.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
414-422Informations de copyright
© 2023 The Authors. Lasers in Surgery and Medicine published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Anderson RR, Parrish JA. Selective photothermolysis: precise microsurgery by selective absorption of pulsed radiation. Science. 1983;220(4596):524-7.
Grossman MC, Dierickx C, Farinelli W, Flotte T, Anderson RR. Damage to hair follicles by normal-mode ruby laser pulses. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1996;35(6):889-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0190-9622(96)90111-5
Anderson RR, Parrish JA. The optics of human skin. J Invest Dermatol. 1981;77(1):13-9.
Town G, Botchkareva NV, Uzunbajakava NE, Nuijs T, van Vlimmeren M, Ash C, et al. Light-based home-use devices for hair removal: why do they work and how effective they are? Lasers Surg Med. 2019;51(6):481-90. https://doi.org/10.1002/lsm.23061
Juhász ML, Levin MK, Marmur ES. A review of available laser and intense light source home devices: a dermatologist's perspective. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2017;16(4):438-43. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocd.12371
Thaysen-Petersen D, Bjerring P, Dierickx C, Nash JF, Town G, Haedersdal M. A systematic review of light-based home-use devices for hair removal and considerations on human safety. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2012;26(5):545-53. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-3083.2011.04353.x
Zelickson Z, Schram S, Zelickson B. Complications in cosmetic laser surgery: a review of 494 food and drug administration manufacturer and user facility device experience reports. Dermatol Surg. 2014;40(4):378-82. https://doi.org/10.1111/dsu.12461
Tremaine AM, Avram MM. FDA MAUDE data on complications with lasers, light sources, and energy-based devices. Lasers Surg Med. 2015;47(2):133-40. https://doi.org/10.1002/lsm.22328
Cohen M, Austin E, Masub N, Kurtti A, George C, Jagdeo J. Home-based devices in dermatology: a systematic review of safety and efficacy. Arch Dermatol Res. 2022;314(3):239-46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00403-021-02231-0
Brown SL, Bright RA, Tavris DR. Medical device epidemiology and surveillance: patient safety is the bottom line. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2004;1(1):1-2. https://doi.org/10.1586/17434440.1.1.1
Town G, Ash C. Measurement of home-use laser and intense pulsed light systems for hair removal: preliminary report. J Cosmet Laser Ther. 2009;11(3):157-68. https://doi.org/10.1080/14764170903137113
Marinac-Dabic D, Normand S-L, Sedrakyan A, Gross T. Epidemiologic. In: Strom BL, Kimmel SE, Hennessy S, editors. Studies of Medical Devices: Methodologic Considerations for Implantable Devices. 5th ed. Wiley-Blackwell; 2012. p. 469-86.
Ricci LH, Navajas SV, Carneiro PR, Söderberg SA, Ferraz CA. Ocular adverse effects after facial cosmetic procedures: a review of case reports. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2015;14(2):145-51. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocd.12141
Rohrer TE, Chatrath V, Yamauchi P, Lask G. Can patients treat themselves with a small novel light based hair removal system. Lasers Surg Med. 2003;33(1):25-9. https://doi.org/10.1002/lsm.10192
Alster TS, Tanzi EL. Effect of a novel low-energy pulsed-light device for home-use hair removal. Dermatol Surg. 2009;35(3):483-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4725.2009.01089.x
Emerson R, Town G. Hair removal with a novel, low fluence, home-use intense pulsed light device. J Cosmet Laser Ther. 2009;11(2):98-105. https://doi.org/10.1080/14764170902792199
Mulholland RS. Silk'n-a novel device using home pulsed light for hair removal at home. J Cosmet Laser Ther. 2009;11(2):106-9. https://doi.org/10.1080/14764170902902806
Adhoute H, Hamidou Z, Humbert P, Lyonnet C, Peuchot MA, Reygagne P, et al. Randomized study of tolerance and efficacy of a home-use intense pulsed light (IPL) source compared to the hot-wax method: IPL source compared to the hot-wax method. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2010;9(4):287-90. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-2165.2010.00523.x
Elm CML, Wallander ID, Walgrave SE, Zelickson BD. Clinical study to determine the safety and efficacy of a low-energy, pulsed light device for home use hair removal. Lasers Surg Med. 2010;42(4):287-91. https://doi.org/10.1002/lsm.20917
Gold MH, Foster A, Biron JA. Low-energy intense pulsed light for hair removal at home. J Clin Aesthet Dermatol. 2010;3(2):48-53.
Gold MH, Biron JA, Thompson B. Clinical evaluation of a novel intense pulsed light source for facial skin hair removal for home use. J Clin Aesthet Dermatol. 2015;8(7):30-5.
Thaysen-Petersen D, Erlendsson AM, Nash JF, Beerwerth F, Philipsen PA, Wulf HC, et al. Ultraviolet radiation after exposure to a low-fluence IPL home-use device: a randomized clinical trial. Lasers Med Sci. 2015;30(8):2171-7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-015-1796-4
Thaysen-Petersen D, Lin JY, Nash J, Beerwerth F, Wulf HC, Philipsen PA, et al. The role of natural and UV-induced skin pigmentation on low-fluence IPL-induced side effects: a randomized controlled trial. Lasers Surg Med. 2014;46(2):104-11. https://doi.org/10.1002/lsm.22167
Brown AS. At-home laser and light-based devices. Curr Probl Dermatol. 2011;42:160-5. https://doi.org/10.1159/000328319
Raulin C, Werner S. Treatment of venous malformations with an intense pulsed light source (IPLS) technology: a retrospective study. Lasers Surg Med. 1999;25(2):170-7. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1096-9101(1999)25:2<170::aid-lsm11>3.0.co;2-v
Lor P, Lennartz B, Ruedlinger R. Patient satisfaction study of unwanted facial and body hair: 5 years experience with intense pulsed light. J Cosmet Laser Ther. 2002;4(3-4):73-9. https://doi.org/10.1080/147641702321136237
Landa N, Corrons N, Zabalza I, Azpiazu JL. Urticaria induced by laser epilation: a clinical and histopathological study with extended follow-up in 36 patients. Lasers Surg Med. 2012;44(5):384-9. https://doi.org/10.1002/lsm.22024
Fernandez AA, França K, Chacon AH, Nouri K. From flint razors to lasers: a timeline of hair removal methods. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2013;12(2):153-62. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocd.12021
Gan SD, Graber EM. Laser hair removal: a review. Dermatol Surg. 2013;39(6):823-38. https://doi.org/10.1111/dsu.12116
Załęska I, Atta-Motte M. Aspects of diode laser (805 nm) hair removal safety in a mixed-race group of patients. J Lasers Med Sci. 2019;10(2):146-52. https://doi.org/10.15171/jlms.2019.23
Salloum A, Bazzi N, Bechara Y, et al. Pathophysiology, clinical findings, and management of Fox ForDyce disease: a systematic review. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2021;21(2):482-500. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocd.14135
Haedersdal M, Gotzsche PC. Laser and photoepilation for unwanted hair growth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;4:CD004684. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004684.pub2
Wanner M, Sakamoto FH, Avram MM, Anderson RR. Immediate skin responses to laser and light treatments. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2016;74(5):807-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2015.06.025
Fodor L, Menachem M, Ramon Y, Shoshani O, Rissin Y, Eldor L, et al. Hair removal using intense pulsed light (EpiLight): patient satisfaction, our experience, and literature review. Ann Plast Surg. 2005;54(1):8-14. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sap.0000141940.34379.78
Goldberg DJ. Current trends in intense pulsed light. J Clin Aesthet Dermatol. 2012;5(6):45-53.
Nash JF, Ward M, Ahluwalia GS. Dermal safety of laser and light-based systems. In: Ahluwalia GSCosmetic applications of laser and light-based systems. William Andrew, Inc; 2009. p. 473-98.
Thaysen-Petersen D, Erlendsson AM, Nash JF, Beerwerth F, Philipsen PA, Wulf HC, et al. Side effects from intense pulsed light: importance of skin pigmentation, fluence level and ultraviolet radiation-a randomized controlled trial. Lasers Surg Med. 2017;49(1):88-96. https://doi.org/10.1002/lsm.22566
Haedersdal M, Haak CS. Hair removal. Curr Probl Dermatol. 2011;42:111-21. https://doi.org/10.1159/000328272
Eadie E, Miller P, Goodman T, Moseley H. Assessment of the optical radiation hazard from a home-use intense pulsed light (IPL) source: OPTICAL RADIATION HAZARD ASSESSMENT OF AN IPL. Lasers Surg Med. 2009;41(7):534-9. https://doi.org/10.1002/lsm.20801
Town G, Ash C, Dierickx C, Fritz K, Bjerring P, Haedersdal M. Guidelines on the safety of light-based home-use hair removal devices from the European Society for Laser Dermatology. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2012;26(7):799-811. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-3083.2011.04406.x
Greenland S, Lash TL. Bias analysis. In: Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Lash TL, editors. Modern epidemiology. 3rd ed. Lippincott-Williams-Wilkins; 2008. p. 345-80.
Lash TL, Fox MP, Fink AK. Applying quantitative bias analysis to epidemiologic data. Springer-Verlag; 2009.
Jurek AM, Maldonado G. Quantitative bias analysis in an asthma study of rescue-recovery workers and volunteers from the 9/11 world trade center attacks. Ann Epidemiol. 2016;26(11):794-801. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2016.09.002
FDA. Coding resources for medical device reports. Health effects-clinical signs and symptoms or conditions (Annex E), Food & Drug Administration; 2022.
Fox MP, Murray EJ, Lesko CR, Sealy-Jefferson S. On the need to revitalize descriptive epidemiology. Am J Epidemiol. 2022;191(7):1174-79. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwac056