Comparison of 15% 5-aminolevulinic acid and 10% 5-aminolevulinic acid photodynamic therapy for the treatment of acne vulgaris: a split-face randomized pilot study.
Natalia Brzezińska, Barbara Bulińska, Natalia Zawadzka, Gustaw Roter, Aneta Szczerkowska-Dobosz
{"title":"Comparison of 15% 5-aminolevulinic acid and 10% 5-aminolevulinic acid photodynamic therapy for the treatment of acne vulgaris: a split-face randomized pilot study.","authors":"Natalia Brzezińska, Barbara Bulińska, Natalia Zawadzka, Gustaw Roter, Aneta Szczerkowska-Dobosz","doi":"10.5114/ada.2024.144417","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Acne vulgaris is a highly prevalent skin disorder, driving the ongoing search for innovative treatment modalities. While numerous studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of photodynamic therapy (PDT) in managing acne vulgaris, there remains a lack of clear guidlines regarding optimal treatment parameters.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To assess the efficacy and safety of 10% concentration 5-aminolevulinic acid-(ALA) in comparison to 15% ALA PDT for treating facial acne vulgaris.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>A randomized, double-blind, split-face clinical trial was conducted on 25 patients with moderate to severe acne (<i>Leeds grades 2-4</i>). Patients were randomly assigned to two groups with different ALA concentrations applied on one cheek, while a placebo was applied on the other side. After a 1.5-hour incubation, illumination with 633 nm red light from a Light Emitting Diode (LED) lamp (96 J/cm<sup>2</sup>) was performed in three sessions with 7-10 days' intervals. Treatment effectiveness was assessed by the lesion reduction rate based on lesion counts before the study, after each session, and at 4 and 8 weeks after the last session.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both 15% and 10% ALA-PDT treatments demonstrated significant reductions in inflammatory acne lesion counts compared to the placebo: 10% ALA-PDT showed a reduction of 27.36% versus 12.64% for the placebo (<i>p</i> = 0.04), while 15% ALA-PDT showed a reduction of 40.45% compared to 13.41% (<i>p</i> < 0.01). However, there was no significant difference between ALA-PDT and placebo in treating non-inflammatory lesions. Additionally, there was no difference between the effectiveness of 10% and 15% ALA in reducing any type of acne lesions.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>ALA-PDT is effective in treating acne vulgaris. However, ALA-PDT provides an advantage over red light only for inflammatory acne lesions. The study indicates that higher concentrations of ALA do not result in more significant reductions in acne lesions.</p>","PeriodicalId":54595,"journal":{"name":"Postepy Dermatologii I Alergologii","volume":"41 5","pages":"479-486"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11589636/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Postepy Dermatologii I Alergologii","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5114/ada.2024.144417","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ALLERGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: Acne vulgaris is a highly prevalent skin disorder, driving the ongoing search for innovative treatment modalities. While numerous studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of photodynamic therapy (PDT) in managing acne vulgaris, there remains a lack of clear guidlines regarding optimal treatment parameters.
Aim: To assess the efficacy and safety of 10% concentration 5-aminolevulinic acid-(ALA) in comparison to 15% ALA PDT for treating facial acne vulgaris.
Material and methods: A randomized, double-blind, split-face clinical trial was conducted on 25 patients with moderate to severe acne (Leeds grades 2-4). Patients were randomly assigned to two groups with different ALA concentrations applied on one cheek, while a placebo was applied on the other side. After a 1.5-hour incubation, illumination with 633 nm red light from a Light Emitting Diode (LED) lamp (96 J/cm2) was performed in three sessions with 7-10 days' intervals. Treatment effectiveness was assessed by the lesion reduction rate based on lesion counts before the study, after each session, and at 4 and 8 weeks after the last session.
Results: Both 15% and 10% ALA-PDT treatments demonstrated significant reductions in inflammatory acne lesion counts compared to the placebo: 10% ALA-PDT showed a reduction of 27.36% versus 12.64% for the placebo (p = 0.04), while 15% ALA-PDT showed a reduction of 40.45% compared to 13.41% (p < 0.01). However, there was no significant difference between ALA-PDT and placebo in treating non-inflammatory lesions. Additionally, there was no difference between the effectiveness of 10% and 15% ALA in reducing any type of acne lesions.
Conclusions: ALA-PDT is effective in treating acne vulgaris. However, ALA-PDT provides an advantage over red light only for inflammatory acne lesions. The study indicates that higher concentrations of ALA do not result in more significant reductions in acne lesions.