The effectiveness of oxytocin for treating substance use disorders:A systematic review of randomized placebo-controlled trials.

Oxytocin is gaining traction in the treatment of various substance use disorders (SUD). We performed a systematic review assessing the efficacy of oxytocin for treating different SUD. The electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched for randomized controlled trials examining the effects of oxytocin vs. placebo in SUD samples. Quality assessment was conducted using a Cochrane validated checklist. A total of 17 trials with unique samples were identified. These were conducted on participants with SUD involving alcohol (n = 5), opioids (n = 3), opioids and/or cocaine/other stimulants (n = 3), cannabis (n = 2), or nicotine (n = 4). Across the SUD-groups, oxytocin reduced withdrawal symptoms (3/5 trials), negative emotional states (4/11 trials), cravings (4/11 trials), cue-induced cravings (4/7 trials), and consumption (4/8 trials). Sixteen trials had an overall considerable risk of bias. In conclusion, although oxytocin showed some promising therapeutic effects, the findings are too inconsistent and the trials too heterogeneous to derive any firm conclusions. Sounder methodological and well-powered trials are warranted.

Skin reactions after photodynamic therapy are unaffected by 839 nm photobiomodulation therapy: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, clinical trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Photodynamic therapy (PDT) is associated with erythema and edema. Photobiomodulation (PBM) therapy may stimulate the skin recovery process. We investigated the potential of PBM to reduce PDT-induced skin reactions. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Healthy volunteers (n = 20) were randomized to receive left- or right side PBM (near-infrared 839/595 nm) or placebo-PBM (595 nm) on their buttocks. Corresponding test areas were exposed to standardized PDT reactions, using ablative fractional laser-assisted PDT (AFXL-PDT) with methyl-aminolevulinate (MAL) incubated for 30, 90, and 180 minutes before red-light illumination. Each buttock received PBM and placebo-PBM for five consecutive days, starting one day before PDT interventions. Follow-up visits were performed 4 and 11 days after PDT. Outcome measure included blinded, observer-assessed skin reactions, substantiated by objectively measured erythema and pigment percentages and skin temperatures. RESULTS: PDT interventions induced a standardized range of erythema and edema in all subjects. Skin reactions were clinically unaffected by PBM throughout the active treatment period and at all subsequent follow-up visits (PBM vs. placebo-PBM, P = 1.000). Clinical results were supported by similar erythema intensities and skin temperatures in PBM and placebo-PBM treated skin: median erythema 28.1% versus 30.3% (AFXL-PDT with 30 minutes MAL-incubation), 36.1% versus 35.2% (90 minutes MAL-incubation) and 39.4% versus 40.9% (180 minutes MAL-incubation) (Day 4, P > 0.05). No differences in clinical hyperpigmentation or pigment percentages were observed between corresponding test areas in any subject on the final 11-day follow-up. CONCLUSION: Under the current study conditions, PDT-induced skin reactions were unaffected by PBM. Lasers Surg. Med. 49:810-818, 2017. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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.

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.