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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:British journal of dermatology (1951) 2010-09, Vol.163 (3), p.607-615
Hauptverfasser: Von Felbert, V., Hoffmann, G., Hoff-Lesch, S., Abuzahra, F., Renn, C.N., Braathen, L.R., Merk, H.F.
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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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&amp;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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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