Management of atopic dermatitis: safety and efficacy of phototherapy

Abstract

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a common chronic inflammatory skin disease that can affect all age groups. It is characterized by a relapsing course and a dramatic impact on quality of life for patients. Environmental interventions together with topical devices represent the mainstay of treatment for AD, in particular emollients, corticosteroids, and calcineurin inhibitors. Systemic treatments are reserved for severe cases. Phototherapy represents a valid second-line intervention in those cases where non-pharmacological and topical measures have failed. Different forms of light therapy are available, and have showed varying degrees of beneficial effect against AD: natural sunlight, narrowband (NB)-UVB, broadband (BB)-UVB, UVA, UVA1, cold-light UVA1, UVA and UVB (UVAB), full-spectrum light (including UVA, infrared and visible light), saltwater bath plus UVB (balneophototherapy), Goeckerman therapy (coal tar plus UVB radiation), psoralen plus UVA (PUVA), and other forms of phototherapy. In particular, UVA1 and NB-UVB have gained importance in recent years. This review illustrates the main trials comparing the efficacy and safety of the different forms of phototherapy. No sufficiently large randomized controlled studies have been performed as yet, and no light modality has been defined as superior to all. Parameters and dosing protocols may vary, although clinicians mainly refer to the indications included in the American Academy of Dermatology psoriasis guidelines devised by Menter et al in 2010. The efficacy of phototherapy (considering all forms) in AD has been established in adults and children, as well as for acute (UVA1) and chronic (NB-UVB) cases. Its use is suggested with strength of recommendation B and level of evidence II. Home phototherapy can also be performed; this technique is recommended with strength C and level of evidence III. Phototherapy is generally considered to be safe and well tolerated, with a low but established percentage of short-term and long-term adverse effects, with the most common being photodamage, xerosis, erythema, actinic keratosis, sunburn, and tenderness. A carcinogenic risk related to UV radiation has not been excluded. Phototherapy also has some limitations related to costs, availability, and patient compliance. In conclusion, phototherapy is an optimal second-line treatment for AD. It can be used as monotherapy or in combination with systemic drugs, in particular corticosteroids. It must be performed conscientiously, especially in children, and must take into account the patient’s features and overall condition.

Neonatal Phototherapy: A Novel Therapy to Prevent Allergic Skin Disease for At Least 5 Years

“…The safety of these drugs is questionable, especially in young children [1]. Adverse effects such as early photoaging, DNA damage, and skin cancer limit the use of UV light in children [2].…”

Estimation of Calcidiol Level in Serum of Atopic Dermatitis Patients before and after NB-UVB Phototherapy in Comparison to Oral Vitamin D Therapy

“…Regarding the nb-UVB, and its well documented efficacy in the treatment of AD [2,23], this study could not offer proof that the up-rise of calcidiol is a direct mechanism by which this improvement in AD is achieved by this phototherapeutic machine. This is because of the lack of a correlation between the calcidiol level and the SCORAD of NBUVBreceiving patients.…”

“…The improvement of clinical signs of atopic dermatitis by the NBUVBtreatment is well documented in literature [2,23,39,40] and is explained by the different mechanisms of actions of nB-UVB. UVB can improve the barrier function through increased expression of terminal differentiation proteins (filaggrin and involucrin) and antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) [41].…”

“…This is of special importance as for the first time oral supplementation of calcidiol was compared to NB-UVB in the treatment of AD. It puts forefront the possibility of using oral calcidiol in the management of AD patients, as it yielded results that appeared to be comparable to that of NB-UVB that is regarded as the most efficacious, well-tolerated treatment option for AD [2,23]. This could be of particular value as it overcomes the compliance problem that is commonly faced while using phototherapy [24], and has a higher safety profile when the side effects of phototherapy [25], or even topical steroids [26] are considered.…”

The Turkish guideline for the diagnosis and management of atopic dermatitis-2018

“…Bununla birlikte AD'li hastalarda ev fototerapisinin etkinliği ve güvenliği ile ilgili çalışma yoktur, aynı şekilde ofis fototerapisi ile ilgili de çalışma yoktur. Bir hekimin kontrolü altında ev fototerapi bir ofis ortamında fototerapi alamayan hastalar için düşünülebilir [102][103][104]106 .…”