Photodynamic therapy of multiple actinic keratoses: reduced pain through use of visible light plus water-filtered infrared A compared with light from light-emitting diodes
Summary Background Photodynamic therapy (PDT) with methyl aminolaevulinate (MAL) is an effective treatment for multiple actinic keratoses (AKs). Pain, however, is a major side‐effect. Objectives To compare pain intensity, efficacy, safety and cosmetic outcome of MAL PDT with two different light so...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | British journal of dermatology (1951) 2010-09, Vol.163 (3), p.607-615 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 615 |
---|---|
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | 607 |
container_title | British journal of dermatology (1951) |
container_volume | 163 |
creator | Von Felbert, V. Hoffmann, G. Hoff-Lesch, S. Abuzahra, F. Renn, C.N. Braathen, L.R. Merk, H.F. |
description | Summary Background Photodynamic therapy (PDT) with methyl aminolaevulinate (MAL) is an effective treatment for multiple actinic keratoses (AKs). Pain, however, is a major side‐effect.
Objectives To compare pain intensity, efficacy, safety and cosmetic outcome of MAL PDT with two different light sources in an investigator‐initiated, randomized, double‐blind study.
Methods Eighty patients with multiple AKs grade I–II were assigned to two groups: group 1, MAL PDT with visible light and water‐filtered infrared A (VIS + wIRA); group 2, MAL PDT with light from light‐emitting diodes (LEDs), with a further division into two subgroups: A, no spray cooling; B, spray cooling on demand. MAL was applied 3 h before light treatment. Pain was assessed before, during and after PDT. Efficacy, side‐effects, cosmetic outcome and patient satisfaction were documented after 2 weeks and 3, 6 and 12 months. Where necessary, treatment was repeated after 3 months.
Results Seventy‐six of the 80 patients receiving MAL PDT completed the study. Patient assessment showed high efficacy, very good cosmetic outcome and high patient satisfaction. The efficacy of treatment was better in the group of patients without spray cooling (P = 0·00022 at 3 months, P = 0·0068 at 6 months) and showed no significant differences between VIS + wIRA and LED. VIS + wIRA was significantly less painful than LED: the median of maximum pain was lower in the VIS + wIRA group than in the LED group for PDT without spray cooling. Pain duration and severity assessed retrospectively were less with VIS + wIRA than with LED, irrespective of cooling.
Conclusions All treatments showed high efficacy with good cosmetic outcome and high patient satisfaction. Efficacy of treatment was better without spray cooling. VIS + wIRA PDT was less painful than LED PDT for PDT without spray cooling. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1111/j.1365-2133.2010.09817.x |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_762479774</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>762479774</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3877-83cdcd58264bc3259ea040d261c5ecc4048ef1dbd43974d7528c4a477ab92d813</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpFkVuPEyEcxYnRuHX1KxhejE9Tuc3AmPiwVl0vG_VhjY-EAtOhy1wExrafyS8ps62Vl_8J5_wgcACAGC1xXq-2S0yrsiCY0iVBeRfVAvPl_gFYnI2HYIEQ4gWqK3oBnsS4RQhTVKLH4IIgRiou0AL8-d4OaTCHXnVOw9TaoMYDHBrYTT650VuodHJ99u6ylYZo42sYrJm0NXBUrs9MGKZNC6doZ-63i26dMe82bYKjnyLcqWRD0TifR6Zc3wQ1iyuoh268lzuX2hPShKE7ysJ2LuXLN9C4wdj4FDxqlI_22Wlegh8f3t-uPhY3364_ra5uCk0F54Wg2mhTClKxtaakrK1CDBlSYV1arRliwjbYrA2jNWeGl0Rophjnal0TIzC9BC-P545h-DXZmGTnorbeq94OU5S8IozXnLOcfH5KTuvOGjkG16lwkP_-NwdenAIqauXzw3vt4v8cJYiUuMy5N8fcznl7OPsYyblvuZVzrXKuVc59y_u-5V6-_fxuVpkvjryLye7PvAp3suKUl_Ln12tZoS9odVsJKehfLcGwPg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>762479774</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Photodynamic therapy of multiple actinic keratoses: reduced pain through use of visible light plus water-filtered infrared A compared with light from light-emitting diodes</title><source>Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current)</source><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Von Felbert, V. ; Hoffmann, G. ; Hoff-Lesch, S. ; Abuzahra, F. ; Renn, C.N. ; Braathen, L.R. ; Merk, H.F.</creator><creatorcontrib>Von Felbert, V. ; Hoffmann, G. ; Hoff-Lesch, S. ; Abuzahra, F. ; Renn, C.N. ; Braathen, L.R. ; Merk, H.F.</creatorcontrib><description>Summary Background Photodynamic therapy (PDT) with methyl aminolaevulinate (MAL) is an effective treatment for multiple actinic keratoses (AKs). Pain, however, is a major side‐effect.
Objectives To compare pain intensity, efficacy, safety and cosmetic outcome of MAL PDT with two different light sources in an investigator‐initiated, randomized, double‐blind study.
Methods Eighty patients with multiple AKs grade I–II were assigned to two groups: group 1, MAL PDT with visible light and water‐filtered infrared A (VIS + wIRA); group 2, MAL PDT with light from light‐emitting diodes (LEDs), with a further division into two subgroups: A, no spray cooling; B, spray cooling on demand. MAL was applied 3 h before light treatment. Pain was assessed before, during and after PDT. Efficacy, side‐effects, cosmetic outcome and patient satisfaction were documented after 2 weeks and 3, 6 and 12 months. Where necessary, treatment was repeated after 3 months.
Results Seventy‐six of the 80 patients receiving MAL PDT completed the study. Patient assessment showed high efficacy, very good cosmetic outcome and high patient satisfaction. The efficacy of treatment was better in the group of patients without spray cooling (P = 0·00022 at 3 months, P = 0·0068 at 6 months) and showed no significant differences between VIS + wIRA and LED. VIS + wIRA was significantly less painful than LED: the median of maximum pain was lower in the VIS + wIRA group than in the LED group for PDT without spray cooling. Pain duration and severity assessed retrospectively were less with VIS + wIRA than with LED, irrespective of cooling.
Conclusions All treatments showed high efficacy with good cosmetic outcome and high patient satisfaction. Efficacy of treatment was better without spray cooling. VIS + wIRA PDT was less painful than LED PDT for PDT without spray cooling.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0007-0963</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1365-2133</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2133.2010.09817.x</identifier><identifier>PMID: 20426780</identifier><identifier>CODEN: BJDEAZ</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>actinic keratoses ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; aminolaevulinic acid ; Aminolevulinic Acid - adverse effects ; Aminolevulinic Acid - analogs & derivatives ; Aminolevulinic Acid - therapeutic use ; Biological and medical sciences ; Dermatology ; Double-Blind Method ; Female ; Filtration - methods ; Humans ; Infrared Rays - therapeutic use ; Keratosis, Actinic - therapy ; Lasers, Semiconductor - adverse effects ; Lasers, Semiconductor - therapeutic use ; Male ; Medical sciences ; Middle Aged ; pain ; Pain - etiology ; Pain - prevention & control ; Pain Measurement ; Patient Satisfaction ; Photochemotherapy - adverse effects ; Photochemotherapy - methods ; photodynamic therapy ; Photosensitizing Agents - adverse effects ; Photosensitizing Agents - therapeutic use ; randomized controlled trial ; Water ; water-filtered infrared A</subject><ispartof>British journal of dermatology (1951), 2010-09, Vol.163 (3), p.607-615</ispartof><rights>2010 The Authors. Journal Compilation © 2010 British Association of Dermatologists</rights><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>2010 The Authors. Journal Compilation © 2010 British Association of Dermatologists.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3877-83cdcd58264bc3259ea040d261c5ecc4048ef1dbd43974d7528c4a477ab92d813</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fj.1365-2133.2010.09817.x$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fj.1365-2133.2010.09817.x$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=23202515$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20426780$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Von Felbert, V.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hoffmann, G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hoff-Lesch, S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Abuzahra, F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Renn, C.N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Braathen, L.R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Merk, H.F.</creatorcontrib><title>Photodynamic therapy of multiple actinic keratoses: reduced pain through use of visible light plus water-filtered infrared A compared with light from light-emitting diodes</title><title>British journal of dermatology (1951)</title><addtitle>Br J Dermatol</addtitle><description>Summary Background Photodynamic therapy (PDT) with methyl aminolaevulinate (MAL) is an effective treatment for multiple actinic keratoses (AKs). Pain, however, is a major side‐effect.
Objectives To compare pain intensity, efficacy, safety and cosmetic outcome of MAL PDT with two different light sources in an investigator‐initiated, randomized, double‐blind study.
Methods Eighty patients with multiple AKs grade I–II were assigned to two groups: group 1, MAL PDT with visible light and water‐filtered infrared A (VIS + wIRA); group 2, MAL PDT with light from light‐emitting diodes (LEDs), with a further division into two subgroups: A, no spray cooling; B, spray cooling on demand. MAL was applied 3 h before light treatment. Pain was assessed before, during and after PDT. Efficacy, side‐effects, cosmetic outcome and patient satisfaction were documented after 2 weeks and 3, 6 and 12 months. Where necessary, treatment was repeated after 3 months.
Results Seventy‐six of the 80 patients receiving MAL PDT completed the study. Patient assessment showed high efficacy, very good cosmetic outcome and high patient satisfaction. The efficacy of treatment was better in the group of patients without spray cooling (P = 0·00022 at 3 months, P = 0·0068 at 6 months) and showed no significant differences between VIS + wIRA and LED. VIS + wIRA was significantly less painful than LED: the median of maximum pain was lower in the VIS + wIRA group than in the LED group for PDT without spray cooling. Pain duration and severity assessed retrospectively were less with VIS + wIRA than with LED, irrespective of cooling.
Conclusions All treatments showed high efficacy with good cosmetic outcome and high patient satisfaction. Efficacy of treatment was better without spray cooling. VIS + wIRA PDT was less painful than LED PDT for PDT without spray cooling.</description><subject>actinic keratoses</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>aminolaevulinic acid</subject><subject>Aminolevulinic Acid - adverse effects</subject><subject>Aminolevulinic Acid - analogs & derivatives</subject><subject>Aminolevulinic Acid - therapeutic use</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Dermatology</subject><subject>Double-Blind Method</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Filtration - methods</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Infrared Rays - therapeutic use</subject><subject>Keratosis, Actinic - therapy</subject><subject>Lasers, Semiconductor - adverse effects</subject><subject>Lasers, Semiconductor - therapeutic use</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>pain</subject><subject>Pain - etiology</subject><subject>Pain - prevention & control</subject><subject>Pain Measurement</subject><subject>Patient Satisfaction</subject><subject>Photochemotherapy - adverse effects</subject><subject>Photochemotherapy - methods</subject><subject>photodynamic therapy</subject><subject>Photosensitizing Agents - adverse effects</subject><subject>Photosensitizing Agents - therapeutic use</subject><subject>randomized controlled trial</subject><subject>Water</subject><subject>water-filtered infrared A</subject><issn>0007-0963</issn><issn>1365-2133</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2010</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpFkVuPEyEcxYnRuHX1KxhejE9Tuc3AmPiwVl0vG_VhjY-EAtOhy1wExrafyS8ps62Vl_8J5_wgcACAGC1xXq-2S0yrsiCY0iVBeRfVAvPl_gFYnI2HYIEQ4gWqK3oBnsS4RQhTVKLH4IIgRiou0AL8-d4OaTCHXnVOw9TaoMYDHBrYTT650VuodHJ99u6ylYZo42sYrJm0NXBUrs9MGKZNC6doZ-63i26dMe82bYKjnyLcqWRD0TifR6Zc3wQ1iyuoh268lzuX2hPShKE7ysJ2LuXLN9C4wdj4FDxqlI_22Wlegh8f3t-uPhY3364_ra5uCk0F54Wg2mhTClKxtaakrK1CDBlSYV1arRliwjbYrA2jNWeGl0Rophjnal0TIzC9BC-P545h-DXZmGTnorbeq94OU5S8IozXnLOcfH5KTuvOGjkG16lwkP_-NwdenAIqauXzw3vt4v8cJYiUuMy5N8fcznl7OPsYyblvuZVzrXKuVc59y_u-5V6-_fxuVpkvjryLye7PvAp3suKUl_Ln12tZoS9odVsJKehfLcGwPg</recordid><startdate>201009</startdate><enddate>201009</enddate><creator>Von Felbert, V.</creator><creator>Hoffmann, G.</creator><creator>Hoff-Lesch, S.</creator><creator>Abuzahra, F.</creator><creator>Renn, C.N.</creator><creator>Braathen, L.R.</creator><creator>Merk, H.F.</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><general>Wiley-Blackwell</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201009</creationdate><title>Photodynamic therapy of multiple actinic keratoses: reduced pain through use of visible light plus water-filtered infrared A compared with light from light-emitting diodes</title><author>Von Felbert, V. ; Hoffmann, G. ; Hoff-Lesch, S. ; Abuzahra, F. ; Renn, C.N. ; Braathen, L.R. ; Merk, H.F.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3877-83cdcd58264bc3259ea040d261c5ecc4048ef1dbd43974d7528c4a477ab92d813</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2010</creationdate><topic>actinic keratoses</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>aminolaevulinic acid</topic><topic>Aminolevulinic Acid - adverse effects</topic><topic>Aminolevulinic Acid - analogs & derivatives</topic><topic>Aminolevulinic Acid - therapeutic use</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Dermatology</topic><topic>Double-Blind Method</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Filtration - methods</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Infrared Rays - therapeutic use</topic><topic>Keratosis, Actinic - therapy</topic><topic>Lasers, Semiconductor - adverse effects</topic><topic>Lasers, Semiconductor - therapeutic use</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>pain</topic><topic>Pain - etiology</topic><topic>Pain - prevention & control</topic><topic>Pain Measurement</topic><topic>Patient Satisfaction</topic><topic>Photochemotherapy - adverse effects</topic><topic>Photochemotherapy - methods</topic><topic>photodynamic therapy</topic><topic>Photosensitizing Agents - adverse effects</topic><topic>Photosensitizing Agents - therapeutic use</topic><topic>randomized controlled trial</topic><topic>Water</topic><topic>water-filtered infrared A</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Von Felbert, V.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hoffmann, G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hoff-Lesch, S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Abuzahra, F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Renn, C.N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Braathen, L.R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Merk, H.F.</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>British journal of dermatology (1951)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Von Felbert, V.</au><au>Hoffmann, G.</au><au>Hoff-Lesch, S.</au><au>Abuzahra, F.</au><au>Renn, C.N.</au><au>Braathen, L.R.</au><au>Merk, H.F.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Photodynamic therapy of multiple actinic keratoses: reduced pain through use of visible light plus water-filtered infrared A compared with light from light-emitting diodes</atitle><jtitle>British journal of dermatology (1951)</jtitle><addtitle>Br J Dermatol</addtitle><date>2010-09</date><risdate>2010</risdate><volume>163</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>607</spage><epage>615</epage><pages>607-615</pages><issn>0007-0963</issn><eissn>1365-2133</eissn><coden>BJDEAZ</coden><abstract>Summary Background Photodynamic therapy (PDT) with methyl aminolaevulinate (MAL) is an effective treatment for multiple actinic keratoses (AKs). Pain, however, is a major side‐effect.
Objectives To compare pain intensity, efficacy, safety and cosmetic outcome of MAL PDT with two different light sources in an investigator‐initiated, randomized, double‐blind study.
Methods Eighty patients with multiple AKs grade I–II were assigned to two groups: group 1, MAL PDT with visible light and water‐filtered infrared A (VIS + wIRA); group 2, MAL PDT with light from light‐emitting diodes (LEDs), with a further division into two subgroups: A, no spray cooling; B, spray cooling on demand. MAL was applied 3 h before light treatment. Pain was assessed before, during and after PDT. Efficacy, side‐effects, cosmetic outcome and patient satisfaction were documented after 2 weeks and 3, 6 and 12 months. Where necessary, treatment was repeated after 3 months.
Results Seventy‐six of the 80 patients receiving MAL PDT completed the study. Patient assessment showed high efficacy, very good cosmetic outcome and high patient satisfaction. The efficacy of treatment was better in the group of patients without spray cooling (P = 0·00022 at 3 months, P = 0·0068 at 6 months) and showed no significant differences between VIS + wIRA and LED. VIS + wIRA was significantly less painful than LED: the median of maximum pain was lower in the VIS + wIRA group than in the LED group for PDT without spray cooling. Pain duration and severity assessed retrospectively were less with VIS + wIRA than with LED, irrespective of cooling.
Conclusions All treatments showed high efficacy with good cosmetic outcome and high patient satisfaction. Efficacy of treatment was better without spray cooling. VIS + wIRA PDT was less painful than LED PDT for PDT without spray cooling.</abstract><cop>Oxford, UK</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><pmid>20426780</pmid><doi>10.1111/j.1365-2133.2010.09817.x</doi><tpages>9</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0007-0963 |
ispartof | British journal of dermatology (1951), 2010-09, Vol.163 (3), p.607-615 |
issn | 0007-0963 1365-2133 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_762479774 |
source | Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current); MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete |
subjects | actinic keratoses Aged Aged, 80 and over aminolaevulinic acid Aminolevulinic Acid - adverse effects Aminolevulinic Acid - analogs & derivatives Aminolevulinic Acid - therapeutic use Biological and medical sciences Dermatology Double-Blind Method Female Filtration - methods Humans Infrared Rays - therapeutic use Keratosis, Actinic - therapy Lasers, Semiconductor - adverse effects Lasers, Semiconductor - therapeutic use Male Medical sciences Middle Aged pain Pain - etiology Pain - prevention & control Pain Measurement Patient Satisfaction Photochemotherapy - adverse effects Photochemotherapy - methods photodynamic therapy Photosensitizing Agents - adverse effects Photosensitizing Agents - therapeutic use randomized controlled trial Water water-filtered infrared A |
title | Photodynamic therapy of multiple actinic keratoses: reduced pain through use of visible light plus water-filtered infrared A compared with light from light-emitting diodes |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-16T12%3A08%3A33IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Photodynamic%20therapy%20of%20multiple%20actinic%20keratoses:%20reduced%20pain%20through%20use%20of%20visible%20light%20plus%20water-filtered%20infrared%20A%20compared%20with%20light%20from%20light-emitting%20diodes&rft.jtitle=British%20journal%20of%20dermatology%20(1951)&rft.au=Von%20Felbert,%20V.&rft.date=2010-09&rft.volume=163&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=607&rft.epage=615&rft.pages=607-615&rft.issn=0007-0963&rft.eissn=1365-2133&rft.coden=BJDEAZ&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/j.1365-2133.2010.09817.x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E762479774%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=762479774&rft_id=info:pmid/20426780&rfr_iscdi=true |