Estudo clínico, prospectivo, aberto, randomizado e comparativo para avaliar a segurança e a eficácia da luz azul versus peróxido de benzoíla 5% no tratamento da acne inflamatória graus II e III

Abstract

FUNDAMENTOS: Muitos pacientes relatam melhora da acne com a exposição à luz solar, e vários estudos demonstram que a luz azul é efetiva no tratamento da acne. OBJETIVOS: Verificar a segurança e a eficácia da luz azul (espectro eletromagnético de 407 a 420 nm) no tratamento da acne inflamatória graus II e III, comparada à terapêutica tópica com peróxido de benzoíla a 5%. MÉTODOS: O estudo avaliou 60 pacientes em cinco visitas: uma de seleção, uma com 7, 14 e 28 dias de tratamento e uma última de seguimento, 14 dias após o término do tratamento. Trinta foram randomizados para luz azul (oito sessões, duas vezes por semana), e outros 30, para peróxido de benzoíla a 5%, duas vezes ao dia, diariamente. A avaliação foi por meio da contagem das lesões e fotografias. RESULTADOS: A redução no número médio de lesões foi semelhante com os dois tratamentos, independente do tipo de lesão (p 0,05), porém o tratamento com a luz azul apresentou menos efeitos colaterais. CONCLUSÕES: A luz azul foi um tratamento tão eficaz quanto o peróxido de benzoíla a 5% para o tratamento da acne graus II e III, mas com menos efeitos adversos.

Effect of Blue Light on Acne Vulgaris: A Systematic Review

“…In a randomized open-air clinical study, Arruda et al [ 25 ], compared the efficacy of blue light with benzoyl peroxide (BPO) at 5% in the treatment of inflammatory acne of grades 2 and 3. The study evaluated 60 patients divided into 2 groups of 30 patients, finishing with 28 patients in the BPO group and 24 in the blue light group, through lesion count and photographs.…”

“…The articles with the lowest risk of bias were Papageorgiou et al [ 34 ]. and Kwon et al [ 33 ] and the one with the highest risk of bias was Arruda et al [ 25 ] because it included patients in order of care for the treatments performed and does not mention the blinding of professionals and evaluators, besides having had a significant loss of participants in the groups, which may have influenced the results of the research. However, in most studies there was no information on how the selection of participants was made or even the selection was made to suggest an uncertain risk of bias.…”

“…The improvement achieved with blue light was equal to that of benzoyl peroxide, regardless of the type of lesion ( p = 0.05). However, side effects were less frequent in the group treated with blue light [ 25 ].…”

“…Domestic therapy with blue light was evaluated using a device with a wavelength of 414 nm and after 3 weeks there was a significant decrease in the inflammatory lesion and erythema [ 25 ]. The skin presented a smoother texture and increased tone [ 26 ].…”

Utilization of light‐emitting diodes for skin therapy: Systematic review and meta‐analysis

“…Regarding control treatments, while most participants received no oral/topical medical treatment or LED light, 6,7,26,28,30,32,33,37,40,[42][43][44][46][47][48][49]51 several studies used a placebo (sham) device for the control arm. 5,27,34,35,[38][39][40][41]45,50 In addition, there were some individual cases using differential control treatments, such as topical 5% benzoyl peroxide, 31 oral famciclovir, 7 0.1% retinol-based cream, 36 and even fractional CO 2 laser. 3 The effectiveness of LED therapy in skin treatment was indicated through the various outcomes, including reduction of inflammatory acne (n = 9), healing time of herpes zoster ophthalmicus/herpes simplex labialis (n = 3), reduction of wrinkle (n = 6), skin wound area (n = 3), psoriasis severity index (n = 3), and erythema index rate (n = 7).…”