Side effects from intense pulsed light: Importance of skin pigmentation, fluence level and ultraviolet radiation-A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Intense pulsed light (IPL) is a mainstream treatment for hair removal. Side effects after IPL are known, but risk factors remain to be investigated. The objective of this study was to assess the contribution of skin pigmentation, fluence level, and ultraviolet radiation (UVR) on IPL-induced side effects. METHODS: The study was a blinded, randomized intra-individual controlled trial including 16 healthy subjects with Fitzpatrick Skin Types (FST) II-V. Three test areas were each divided into four sites, randomized to a single IPL exposure of 22, 34, 46 J/cm2 or triple stacking of 46 J/cm2 . Areas were subsequently randomized to no UVR or single solar-simulated UVR exposure of 3 Standard Erythema Dose at 30 minutes or 24 hours after IPL. Each area had a corresponding control, resulting in 15 treatment sites. Follow-up visits were scheduled up to 4 weeks after IPL. Outcome measures were: (i) blinded clinical skin reactions; (ii) objectively measured erythema and pigmentation; (iii) pain measured by visual analog scale (VAS); (iv) histology (H&E, Fontana-Masson); and (v) mRNA-expression of p53. RESULTS: Fifteen subjects with FST II-IV completed the protocol. IPL induced a wide range of skin reactions, including erythema (87% of subjects), purpura (27%), blisters (20%), edema (13%), crusting (13%), hyper- (60%), and hypopigmentation (20%). Darker skin pigmentation and increasing IPL fluence were determinants for IPL-induced side effects (P ≤ 0.002), while a single exposure of UVR did not exacerbate side effects (P ≥ 0.180). Clinical findings were confirmed objectively by reflectance spectrometry and qualitatively by histological changes in skin architecture, inflammatory infiltration, and pigmentation. Marker of cellular DNA damage, that is, p53, did not increase after IPL (P ≥ 0.24). CONCLUSIONS: Skin pigmentation and IPL fluence are major determinants of side effects after IPL exposure, while a single exposure to three SED of UVR at 30 minutes or 24 hours after IPL, does not amplify such side effects. Lasers Surg. Med. 49:88-96, 2017. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

A randomized side-by-side study comparing alexandrite laser at different pulse durations for port wine stains.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Pulsed dye laser (PDL) represents the gold-standard treatment for port wine stains (PWS). However, approximately 20% of patients are poor responders and yield unsatisfactory end-results. The Alexandrite (Alex) laser may be a therapeutic alternative for selected PWS subgroups, but optimal laser parameters are not known. The aim of this study was to assess clinical PWS clearance and safety of Alex laser at a range of pulse durations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixteen individuals (14 previously PDL-treated) with deep red (n = 4), purple macular (n = 5) and purple hypertrophic (n = 7) PWS were included. Four side-by-side test areas were marked within each lesion. Three test areas were randomized to Alex laser at pulse durations of 3, 5, or 10 ms (8 mm spot, DCD 60/40), while the fourth was untreated. The lowest effective fluence to create purpura within the entire test spot was titrated and applied to intervention areas. Standardized clinical photographs were taken prior to, immediately after laser exposure and at 6-8 weeks follow up. Clinical PWS clearance and laser-related side effects were assessed using clinical photos. RESULTS: Alex laser at 3, 5, and 10 ms pulse durations demonstrated significant clearance compared to untreated controls (P < 0.001). Three milli second pulse duration exhibited improved clearance versus 5 ms (P = 0.016) and 10 ms (P = 0.004), while no difference between five and 10 ms was shown (P = 0.063). Though not significant, good responders (>50% clearance) were more likely to have purple hypertrophic PWS (5/7) compared to purple macular (2/5) and deep red lesions (1/4). Eight laser-exposed test areas (17%) developed hypopigmented atrophic scarring. Side effects tended to be more frequently observed with 5 ms (n = 4) and 10 ms (n = 3) versus 3 ms pulse duration (n = 1). Correspondingly, 3 ms was associated with a superior (n = 6) or comparable (n = 10) overall cosmetic appearance for all individuals. CONCLUSION: Alex laser at 3 ms pulse duration offers superior clinical clearance and safety compared to 5 and 10 ms, and seems best suited for purple hypertrophic PWS. Treatment should be restricted to experienced personnel due to a particularly narrow therapeutic window. Lasers Surg. Med. 49:97-103, 2017. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Translational medicine in the field of ablative fractional laser (AFXL)-assisted drug delivery: A critical review from basics to current clinical status.

BACKGROUND: Ablative fractional lasers enhance uptake of topical therapeutics and the concept of fractional laser-assisted drug delivery has now been taken into clinical practice. OBJECTIVES: We systematically reviewed preclinical data and clinical evidence for fractional lasers to enhance drug uptake and improve clinical efficacy. METHODS: We searched PubMed and Embase databases; 34 articles met the inclusion criteria. Studies were categorized into experimental preclinical studies and clinical trials, the latter graded according to level of evidence. RESULTS: All preclinical trials (n = 16) documented enhanced topical drug uptake into skin after ablative fractional laser treatment. Clinical evidence encompassed 18 studies, of which 9 were randomized controlled trials and 2 were controlled trials, examining neoplastic lesions, photodamaged skin, scars, onychomycosis, and topical anesthetics. The highest level of evidence was reached for actinic keratoses treated with methylaminolevulinate for photodynamic therapy (level IB, 5 randomized controlled trials), substantiating superior and long-lasting efficacy versus conventional photodynamic therapy. No adverse events were reported, but ablative fractional laser-assisted drug delivery implies risks of systemic drug absorption, especially when performed over large skin areas. CONCLUSIONS: Fractional laser-assisted drug delivery is beneficial in enhancing preclinical and clinical outcomes for certain skin conditions.

Ultraviolet radiation after exposure to a low-fluence IPL home-use device: a randomized clinical trial.

The prevailing advice is to avoid sun exposure after intense pulsed light (IPL) hair removal. However, no systematic evaluation of ultraviolet radiation (UVR) after IPL hair removal exits. Therefore, we investigated the occurrence of side effects in subjects receiving solar-simulated UVR after a low-fluence IPL treatment with a home-use device. Sixteen subjects with Fitzpatrick skin types (FST) II-V were enrolled. Three constitutive buttock blocks (4.4 × 6.4 cm) were each subdivided into four sites, randomized to one IPL exposure of 0, 7, 8, or 10 J/cm2 (spectral output 530-1100 nm). Blocks were randomized to no UVR or three standard erythema doses (SEDs) UVR either 30 min or 24 h after IPL. Follow-up visits were 48 h, 1 week, and 4 weeks after IPL. Outcome measures were (i) clinical skin reactions, (ii) reflectance measurements of erythema and pigmentation, and (iii) pain. Subjects with FST II-IV experienced no skin reactions up to 4 weeks after IPL, neither erythema, edema, blisters, crusting, textual, nor pigment changes. Reflectance confirmed no change in erythema and pigmentation (p ≥ 0.090). UVR exposure induced erythema and increased pigmentation. The combination of IPL and UVR induced skin reactions not different to responses from UVR (IPL-UVR vs. UVR, p ≥ 0.164). Pain was generally low (median 1, range 0-4) and correlated positively with fluence and pigmentation (Spearman's rho ≥ 0.394, p < 0.001). One subject with FST V experienced perifollicular hyperpigmentation after IPL and slightly more intense when exposed to UVR. A single UVR exposure of three SEDs either shortly or 1 day after low-fluence IPL causes no amplification of skin responses in constitutive skin of individuals with FST II-IV.