Cutaneous carcinogenic risk evaluation in 375 patients treated with narrowband-UVB phototherapy: A 15-year experience from our Institute.

BACKGROUND: Narrowband-ultraviolet B (NB-UVB) is widely used for the treatment of several dermatological diseases. A cutaneous carcinogenic effect has been hypothesized, but not proved. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the data of patients treated with NB-UVB between January 1998 and December 2013 at the Dermatology Unit of our University Hospital, to evaluate the cutaneous carcinogenic risk of NB-UVB. RESULTS: In all, 375 patients were included, each receiving a mean follow-up of 6.9 years. Vitiligo and psoriasis were the most common diseases. In total, 19 non-melanoma skin cancers (NMSCs) were diagnosed in eight patients, after a mean latency of 5.2 years after the first radiation. No malignant melanoma (MM) was observed. The incidence rates of basal cell carcinoma (BCC) and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) were 620.2/100 ̇000 p/y and 116.3/100 ̇000 p/y. NMSCs were more frequent in patients affected by psoriasis (P = .0232), with older age at the first radiation (mean = 68.8 years, P = .0001). CONCLUSION: Despite the small number of patients and limited follow-up, our data suggest that NB-UVB may trigger cutaneous carcinogenesis, mainly in patients at risk for NMSCs, increasing their personal risk for single and multiple neoplasms, usually superficial BCCs. MM risk does not seem to be enhanced.

Safety and Efficacy of Phototherapy in the Management of Eczema.

Atopic Dermatitis (AD), a common skin disease, can occur in patients of all age, gender and ethnicity. It is an inflammatory affection, characterized by chronic and highly debilitating behavior. First-line interventions against AD include environmental measures and topical emollients, corticosteroids or calcineurin inhibitors. When these measures are not sufficient, phototherapy represents an efficient second-line option of treatment; it can be administered on its own, or in the most severe cases combined with systemic medicaments such as corticosteroids.Different types of light therapy, including photochemotherapy, have been tested in the past and in recent years for AD: in particular, ultraviolet A1 (UVA1) and narrow band ultraviolet B (NB-UVB) have been reported in the literature as the most effective resources, respectively for acute and chronic AD. However, to date, no guidelines have been realized concerning the use of phototherapy for AD, as no light form has been defined superior to the others. The most reliable protocols and dosimetry are standardized within the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) psoriasis guidelines.In adults and children over 12 years (8 years for NB-UVB) phototherapy is recommended with strength B and level of evidence II (excluding home phototherapy, which is recommended with strength C and level of evidence III). It is usually safe and well tolerated; however its short- and long-term adverse effects are the same as those observed when light therapy is performed for other pathologic conditions. Erythema and photodamage are in particular quite frequent; moreover it has not been clarified whether UV radiation may induce neoplastic cellular transformation. For all these reasons, the use of phototherapy must be chosen only after a comprehensive and careful evaluation of the patient's features and compliance, as well as of the limitations of the procedure due to costs and availability.

Randomized, controlled, double-blind clinical study evaluating the safety and efficacy of MD2011001 cream in mild-to-moderate atopic dermatitis of the face and neck in children, adolescents and adults.

INTRODUCTION: This mono-center randomized, controlled, double-blind study evaluates the safety and efficacy of MD2011001 cream versus placebo, in mild-to-moderate atopic dermatitis (AD). MD2011001 is a nonsteroidal topical cream containing vitamin E, epigallocatechin gallate and grape seed procyanidins. METHODS: Patients with AD (corresponding to an IGA score of 2 or 3), involving the face, the perioral/periocular area and/or the neck, were enrolled. Patients were randomized 1:1 ratio to receive MD2011001 or placebo before the start of the study (D0), then evaluated after 7 days, and after 28 days. The study was approved by the Local Independent Ethics Committee and conducted according to the Declaration of Helsinki and local regulations. The statistical tests used were the Wilcoxon test and the Mann-Whitney U-test. RESULTS: Forty-four patients (29F and 15M) were enrolled. The IGA values showed a statistically significant reduction during the treatment period obtaining a favorable safety profile and local tolerance for both the products. The reduction in the surface area affected by AD was significantly faster with MD2011001. DISCUSSION: This study focuses on very sensitive areas known to be particularly susceptible to local complications. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest the usefulness of an emollient treatment for mild/moderate AD.

Management of atopic dermatitis: safety and efficacy of phototherapy.

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a common chronic inflammatory skin disease that can affect all age groups. It is characterized by a relapsing course and a dramatic impact on quality of life for patients. Environmental interventions together with topical devices represent the mainstay of treatment for AD, in particular emollients, corticosteroids, and calcineurin inhibitors. Systemic treatments are reserved for severe cases. Phototherapy represents a valid second-line intervention in those cases where non-pharmacological and topical measures have failed. Different forms of light therapy are available, and have showed varying degrees of beneficial effect against AD: natural sunlight, narrowband (NB)-UVB, broadband (BB)-UVB, UVA, UVA1, cold-light UVA1, UVA and UVB (UVAB), full-spectrum light (including UVA, infrared and visible light), saltwater bath plus UVB (balneophototherapy), Goeckerman therapy (coal tar plus UVB radiation), psoralen plus UVA (PUVA), and other forms of phototherapy. In particular, UVA1 and NB-UVB have gained importance in recent years. This review illustrates the main trials comparing the efficacy and safety of the different forms of phototherapy. No sufficiently large randomized controlled studies have been performed as yet, and no light modality has been defined as superior to all. Parameters and dosing protocols may vary, although clinicians mainly refer to the indications included in the American Academy of Dermatology psoriasis guidelines devised by Menter et al in 2010. The efficacy of phototherapy (considering all forms) in AD has been established in adults and children, as well as for acute (UVA1) and chronic (NB-UVB) cases. Its use is suggested with strength of recommendation B and level of evidence II. Home phototherapy can also be performed; this technique is recommended with strength C and level of evidence III. Phototherapy is generally considered to be safe and well tolerated, with a low but established percentage of short-term and long-term adverse effects, with the most common being photodamage, xerosis, erythema, actinic keratosis, sunburn, and tenderness. A carcinogenic risk related to UV radiation has not been excluded. Phototherapy also has some limitations related to costs, availability, and patient compliance. In conclusion, phototherapy is an optimal second-line treatment for AD. It can be used as monotherapy or in combination with systemic drugs, in particular corticosteroids. It must be performed conscientiously, especially in children, and must take into account the patient's features and overall condition.

A double-blind, randomized, vehicle-controlled clinical study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of MAS063DP (ATOPICLAIR) in the management of atopic dermatitis in paediatric patients.

A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled clinical study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of MAS063DP in 60 paediatric patients affected by atopic dermatitis (AD), aged between 2 and 17 years. Using the Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) score for AD, patients with a score of 2 (mild) or 3 (moderate) were enrolled in the study. Patients were randomly selected to receive MAS063DP (20 patients), MAS060 (20 patients, a similar formulation with lower key ingredients' concentration and no preservatives) or vehicle (20 patients).The study consisted in a treatment period of 43 days, with clinical evaluations at baseline (day 1), days 8, 15, 22, 29 and 43, at which time the treatment was stopped. MAS063DP showed nearly 80% improvement in IGA score at day 22, compared with 16.6% and 26.3% with the MAS060 and vehicle respectively. A statistically significant difference was found by comparing MAS063DP with MAS060 (p < 0.0001); a similar result was evidenced comparing MAS063DP and vehicle (p = 0.001). By contrast, no significant difference was found between MAS060 and vehicle. A statistically significant difference was sustained until the end of the study. MAS063DP may therefore be considered as one of the available regimens effective in the treatment of mild-to-moderate AD in children and adolescents.