Prospective study of intense pulsed light versus pulsed dye laser with or without blue light in the activation of PDT for the treatment of actinic keratosis and photodamage.

BACKGROUND: Exposure to ultraviolet (UV) light from the sun is known to have a deleterious effect on the skin. Repeated insults to the dermal matrix from UV radiation result in the clinical signs of photodamage, including changes in skin elasticity, color, and texture. UV radiation also leads to the accumulation of DNA mutations and promotes tumor development, resulting in the formation of cutaneous precancerous and cancerous lesions. Continuous-wave incoherent blue light, intense pulsed light (IPL), and pulsed dye laser (PDL) are safe and efficacious light sources commonly used for aminolevulinic acid photodynamic therapy (PDT). The aim of this study was to prospectively evaluate the efficacy of PDT for the treatment of photodamage and actinic keratoses using four different combinations of light sources: PDL, PDL + blue light, IPL, and IPL + blue light.

STUDY: A total of 220 patients with either photodamage or actinic keratosis (AK) were recruited from the Miami Dermatology Laser Institute (Miami, FL) and were assigned prospectively to undergo one PDT treatment with one of the four light options: PDL, PDL + blue light, IPL or IPL + blue light. Of the 220 patients enrolled in treatment groups, 214 patients completed the study. Of the 214 patients, 88 received treatment for AK, and 126 received treatment for photodamage. All patients gave their consent to participate in the study and to allow their photographs to be utilized for the purpose of scientific presentations.

RESULTS: Treatment with IPL resulted in a 70.8% reduction of actinic keratoses at a 1-month follow-up. Treatment with IPL and blue light 84.4% reduction of actinic keratoses at 1 month follow up. Treatment with PDL 70.5% reduction of actinic keratoses at 1 month follow up. Treatment with PDL and blue light 69.3% reduction of actinic keratoses at 1 month follow up. Treatment with IPL resulted in an improvement score of 2.9. Treatment with IPL and blue light resulted in an improvement score of 3.0. Treatment PDL resulted in an improvement score of 1.5. Treatment with PDL and blue light resulted in an improvement score of 1.8.

CONCLUSION: Although all four treatment groups led to some improvement in signs of photoaging, IPL + blue light again demonstrated increased efficacy when compared to IPL, PDL, and PDL + blue light treatment groups. Results from our study were limited by an unequal distribution between treatment groups and a lack of follow-up beyond a 1-month period and warrant further research.