Efficacy and safety of intense pulsed light in the treatment of mild-to-moderate acne vulgaris

Abstract

Acne vulgaris is a very common chronic inflammatory disease of pilosebaceous units. It can be associated with considerable loss of self-esteem and psychological morbidity when left untreated. With the emergence of lasers and intense pulsed light, long-term reduction of acne lesions is now possible. The success of these optical devices depends on the selected parameters and biologic variables of patient. The objective of this study is to determine the efficacy and safety of intense pulsed light (IPL) in the treatment of mild-to-moderate acne vulgaris. This interventional study was conducted for a period of one year after approval of synopsis. A total of 75 patients of mild-to-moderate acne vulgaris were included through non-probability, convenience sampling. Patients were subjected to intense pulsed light (IPL) therapy once a week for four weeks. Digital photography was done at the baseline and at the sixth week. Follow-up was done after two weeks of completion of four sessions. Repeated measurement ANOVA was used for significance of IPL at six weeks of follow-up. The p value < 0.05 was taken as significant. IPL was effective in 52% of the patients. Out of all cases, 6 (8%) showed excellent results. 33 (44%) showed >50% reduction with therapy. Percentage reduction was observed as 49% ± 20% at final follow-up. Papules count was reduced from 11.95 ± 2.89 to 6.69 ± 2.96, pustules count was reduced from 2.55 ± 1.54 to 0.79 ± 1.02 from baseline to final follow-up visit. 16 subjects showed mild erythema that resolved within 24 h. None of the patients showed any severe side effects at final follow-up visit. We conclude from the results of this study that IPL is safe and efficacious in more than half of the patients in the treatment of mild and moderate acne vulgaris. A long-term follow-up is required to determine long-term safety on skin following such procedures.Keywords: Acne vulgaris; intense pulsed light; pustules; papules Citation: Khan WZ, Butt G, Altaf F. Efficacy and safety of intense pulsed light in the treatment of mild-to-moderate acne vulgaris. J Surg Dermatol 2017; 2(T1): 152-157; http://dx

Normative data of median nerve conduction in the state of Haryana

“…At the end of six treatment sessions, the mean lesion count of total lesions reduced from 44.83 (at baseline) to 11.60 which was found to be statistically significant (p=.005). Our study results was in concordance with similar study done by Khan WZ et al 18 wherein mean lesion count of total lesions decreased to 7.48 ± 3.34 of their pretreatment value (14.49 ± 2.93) after final treatment session which was statistically significant (p=.000). At the end of six treatment sessions (week 6), 3 patients (10.0%) had excellent non inflammatory lesion clearance (>75%), 16 patients (53.3%) had good non inflammatory lesion clearance (51-75%).…”

“…At the end of six treatment sessions (week 6), 17 patients (56.7%) had excellent total lesion clearance (>75%), 13 patients (43.3%) had good total lesion clearance (51-75%). However, similar study done by Mohanan S et al 19 wherein seven patients had 51-75% reduction in lesion count (good response) and one had moderate response at the end of five treatment sessions; Khan W Z et al 18 reported 6 patients (8%) having excellent response and 33 patients (44%) showing good response at the end of treatment.…”

Efficacy and Safety of Intense Pulsed Light in Patients of Inflammatory Acne Vulgaris

“…In our study, only 9% of patients developed transient mild erythema, less than the study by Khan et al where 21% of the patients developed erythema. 13 Mohanan et al reported no adverse effects in their trial. This further establishes the safety of IPL in South Asian skin.…”

“…12 Previous studies reported an improvement of >50% in 44% of patients. 13,14 per week for four weeks, and results revealed that a majority of patients (85%) had more than 50% improvement in their acne vulgaris lesions. 15 Using a higher cut-off filter of 530nm to 1200nm with six passes over the affected area could explain the difference in clinical outcome.…”