Photodiagnosis and photodynamic therapy · 2020
Conventional versus daylight photodynamic therapy for acne vulgaris: A randomized and prospective clinical study in China.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Zhang Linglin, Zhang Yunfeng, Liu Xiaojing, Shi Lei, Wang Peiru, Zhang Haiyan, Zhou Zhongxia, Zhao Yan, Zhang Guolong, Wang Xiuli
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Photodynamic therapy (PDT) is an effective and safe treatment modality for acne vulgaris, and a variety of light sources have been investigated. Sunlight has been used as a PDT light source in a limited number of acne studies . However, to date, a comparative study of conventional PDT (C-PDT) and daylight PDT (DL-PDT) on acne is still lacking.
OBJECTIVES: This study aims to assess the efficacy and safety of DL-PDT vs. C-PDT in the treatment of acne vulgaris.
METHODS: Eighty patients with facial moderate-to-severe acne vulgaris were randomly assigned to either DL-PDT group or C-PDT group. All patients got two to three treatment sessions at two-week intervals. The lesions were photographed with VISIA digital imaging system at baseline and weeks 2, 4, and 6. Follow-up monthly for 3 months. The endpoints include efficacy (lesion response), safety (VAS pain score) and patient satisfaction.
RESULTS: A total of 77 patients completed the study. There was no statistical difference in objective response rate between DL-PDT group and C-PDT group at weeks 2, 4, and 6, respectively (40.0 %, 90.0 %, and 94.7 % vs. 45.0 %, 85.0 %, and 92.3 %, p > 0.05). The IGA score of DL-PDT group has no difference from C-PDT at baseline and at weeks 6, respectively (3.3 ± 0.4, 1.5 ± 0.7 vs. 3.4 ± 0.5, 1.6 ± 0.7, p > 0.05). The VAS pain score of DL-PDT group was lower than that of C-PDT group (1.8 ± 0.2, vs. 5.8 ± 0.3, p < 0.05). Adverse reactions such as mild burning sensation, erythema, dryness, crusting, scales and hyperpigmentation were all tolerated. Patient satisfaction was similar between the two groups (p > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: DL-PDT is an effective and well-tolerated regimen for moderate-to-severe acne vulgaris compared with C-PDT.
OBJECTIVES: This study aims to assess the efficacy and safety of DL-PDT vs. C-PDT in the treatment of acne vulgaris.
METHODS: Eighty patients with facial moderate-to-severe acne vulgaris were randomly assigned to either DL-PDT group or C-PDT group. All patients got two to three treatment sessions at two-week intervals. The lesions were photographed with VISIA digital imaging system at baseline and weeks 2, 4, and 6. Follow-up monthly for 3 months. The endpoints include efficacy (lesion response), safety (VAS pain score) and patient satisfaction.
RESULTS: A total of 77 patients completed the study. There was no statistical difference in objective response rate between DL-PDT group and C-PDT group at weeks 2, 4, and 6, respectively (40.0 %, 90.0 %, and 94.7 % vs. 45.0 %, 85.0 %, and 92.3 %, p > 0.05). The IGA score of DL-PDT group has no difference from C-PDT at baseline and at weeks 6, respectively (3.3 ± 0.4, 1.5 ± 0.7 vs. 3.4 ± 0.5, 1.6 ± 0.7, p > 0.05). The VAS pain score of DL-PDT group was lower than that of C-PDT group (1.8 ± 0.2, vs. 5.8 ± 0.3, p < 0.05). Adverse reactions such as mild burning sensation, erythema, dryness, crusting, scales and hyperpigmentation were all tolerated. Patient satisfaction was similar between the two groups (p > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: DL-PDT is an effective and well-tolerated regimen for moderate-to-severe acne vulgaris compared with C-PDT.