Home phototherapy for psoriasis: a review and update.

A 2006 survey of dermatologists showed that home phototherapy should be used with caution, and that general, nonevidence-based opinions were widespread about this form of therapy. This led to a randomized controlled trial to assess the safety and efficacy of home phototherapy vs. outpatient phototherapy by the same authors in 2009, which concluded that a lower burden of treatment and increased patient satisfaction were associated with home phototherapy. In the UK National Health Service, with a single exception, phototherapy is currently carried out exclusively in hospital. This contrasts with the Netherlands, where home phototherapy is now widely available. NHS dermatology services in the UK have yet to adopt home phototherapy as a treatment option, despite the strong evidence base and robust service models established elsewhere. In this review, we discuss evidence-based papers on home phototherapy, its advantages and disadvantages, economic effectiveness, and a suggested model for service sustainability.

Rate of acute adverse events for narrow-band UVB and Psoralen-UVA phototherapy.

BACKGROUND: Ultraviolet (UV) radiation therapies are commonly used to treat a wide range of dermatological conditions. However, no published data exist regarding the rate of acute adverse events occurring within the different UV therapy modalities. AIM: The aim of this study was to determine the rate of acute adverse events experienced by patients receiving narrow-band UVB or photochemotherapy in 3 neighboring dermatology units. METHOD: Standardized adverse event forms from all 3 units were retrospectively analysed over a 12-month period between October 2003 and September 2004. The treatments included were narrow-band UVB and systemic, bath and hand/foot PUVA. RESULTS: A total of 8784 treatments were given over the study period. The total number of acute adverse events recorded for all phototherapy treatments was 70 (0.8%). The rates of acute adverse events for each treatment modality were 0.6% for narrow-band UVB, 1.3% for systemic PUVA, 1.3% for bath PUVA and 0.8% for hand/foot PUVA. Adverse events were due to patient non-compliance with standard operating procedures in 15 cases (21%) and operator error in 2 (3%). Only 4 of the acute adverse events were considered to be severe, accounting for 0.05% of all treatments. CONCLUSIONS: The rates of acute adverse events with phototherapy in this analysis were low, in particular the rate of severe adverse events. The highest rate was seen with both systemic and bath PUVA. The number of adverse events resulting from operator error was low. These published rates for adverse events associated with narrow-band UVB and PUVA may help other units when analyzing their own rate of adverse events.

Validation of a semiautomated method of minimal erythema dose testing for narrowband ultraviolet B phototherapy.

BACKGROUND: The most widely used method for establishing the minimal erythema dose (MED) before narrowband ultraviolet (UV) B phototherapy is time-consuming, inconvenient and may yield inconsistent results. OBJECTIVES: To assess the equivalence of MED assessment using a filtered xenon arc lamp UV source, a semiautomated MED tester, and a UV-opaque template method of MED determination with a panel of TL-01 311-nm UVB fluorescent tubes. Secondly, to gauge the current usage of MED testing, and the method used, in a large sample of U.K. phototherapy units. Thirdly, to assess variation in UV output of the semiautomated skin tester immediately after switching on to identify optimum warm-up time. Finally, to assess reproducibility of MED testing by assessing within-patient variability and interobserver variability of MED test results. METHODS: Sixty-five patients about to undergo UVB phototherapy had their MED determined using three different methods. Within each patient we compared the values of MED determined by a semiautomated Durham MED tester, a panel of narrowband UVB lamps with a UV-opaque template constructed by a phototherapist, and a 310-nm filtered xenon arc lamp with a liquid light guide. MED test results were assessed by clinical evaluation using a 6500 K colour temperature examination lamp. The output of the semiautomated MED tester was measured by spectroradiometer over a period of 20 min in order to identify the time to steady output. Reproducibility of MED testing with the semiautomated MED tester was carried out in 25 normal volunteers. All MEDs were assessed by at least two independent observers. A postal questionnaire was sent to 78 U.K. phototherapy units to assess routine practice concerning MED testing prior to narrowband UVB phototherapy. RESULTS: The semiautomated MED tester showed consistency with the panel method (r = 0.92, panel MED = -0.57 + 1.14 x Durham MED). The semiautomated MED tester produced a slightly lower MED result than the panel MED. Reproducibility tests showed high interobserver agreement (kappa value = 0.79), and high consistency for successive day testing (kappa value = 0.79). Questionnaires were returned from 67 of 78 phototherapy units (85%) and revealed that 19 units (28%) were routinely using MED testing prior to UVB therapy. CONCLUSIONS: This study has shown the Durham MED tester to be a convenient, valid and reproducible method for determining patient MED values prior to narrowband UVB phototherapy when used under carefully controlled lighting, by experienced observers.

Modulation of ultraviolet (UV) transmission by emollients: relevance to narrowband UVB phototherapy and psoralen plus UVA photochemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Patients with psoriasis undergoing or about to undergo ultraviolet (UV) phototherapy and photochemotherapy often have thick scale on their plaques which can prevent the penetration of UV radiation. Emollients are used to moisturize the skin and to prevent or reduce some of the milder side-effects ('dryness', itching) sometimes experienced during UV therapy. However, emollients can alter the UV transmission of skin and thus may alter the clinical effects of phototherapy and photochemotherapy. OBJECTIVES: We tested 30 of the topical emollients in the British National Formulary (BNF) using a standard in vitro technique used to test sunscreens. We also surveyed U.K. phototherapy units to establish routine practice for emollient use in phototherapy and photochemotherapy. METHODS: We used a standard in vitro technique to measure the monochromatic protection factors (MPFs) of 30 non-bath emollients from the BNF. An application rate of 2 mg cm-2 was used. For the assessment of effects during narrowband UVB (TL-01) phototherapy, the mean of the protection factors at 310 and 315 nm was calculated; for psoralen plus UVA photochemotherapy the mean UVA protection factor was used. A questionnaire survey was used to assess routine practice concerning emollient use prior to phototherapies in phototherapy units throughout the U.K. RESULTS: In the UVA range, 17 of the 30 emollients gave protection factors of 1.2 or above. In the UVB range, 23 of 30 had an MPF of 1.2 or above. Yellow soft paraffin had the highest protection factor in the UVB range. Of 78 centres surveyed, 57 returned completed questionnaires (73%). Seventeen of 57 (30%) centres routinely used emollients immediately prior to administering phototherapy treatments. The remaining 40 of 57 (70%) did not. Forty-five (79%) responding centres recommended the use of emollients after phototherapy. CONCLUSIONS: This study has revealed considerable variability in the practice of emollient use before phototherapy treatments. Although the majority of centres included in this study did not routinely use emollients, almost one third did. Our in vitro measurement of 30 emollients revealed marked variation in UV transmission, with many emollients blocking sufficient UV to affect the response to therapy.

Bowen's disease, solar keratoses and superficial basal cell carcinomas treated by photodynamic therapy using a large-field incoherent light source.

BACKGROUND: Photodynamic therapy (PDT) has not yet been demonstrated to be superior to conventional treatment in the treatment of superficial skin cancers and premalignant skin conditions. A limitation for PDT is the absence to date of a light source suitable for the treatment of larger lesions or 'field changes' where several lesions are present on one anatomical site. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the safety and efficacy of a large field light source, the Waldmann PDT 1200, in the treatment of Bowen's disease (BD), superficial basal cell carcinomas (BCCs) and solar keratoses (SKs). METHODS: After application of 5-aminolaevulinic acid for 4-6 h, each lesion was irradiated with 105 J cm-2 of incoherent red light centred on 640 nm. Eighty-eight patients with 239 lesions were recruited. RESULTS: Within two treatments, 88% of BD lesions, 95% of BCCs and 99% of SKs showed complete clinical clearance. At 12 months the complete response rates were 69% for BD, 82% for BCC and 72% for SK. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms that PDT is a useful treatment and that selected superficial BCCs and SKs respond well to PDT. The PDT 1200 light source proved capable of treating multiple lesions amounting to a 'field change' and also lesions up to 10 cm in diameter within an acceptable treatment time. Thus far, PDT has failed to become established as a routine treatment for small premalignant and malignant skin lesions as it has not proved superior to simple cheaper conventional therapies such as cryotherapy, curettage and cautery, topical chemotherapy with 5-fluorouracil, or surgery. However, PDT has become established as a treatment for selected cases in some centres. This study suggests a role for PDT in the treatment of large premalignancies, superficial BCCs and field change where existing treatments may be problematic.