Photomedicine and phototherapy considerations for patients with skin of color

Atopic Dermatitis Across Shades of Skin

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic, heterogeneous inflammatory skin disease that is associated with immense patient burden globally. There is increasing appreciation of disparities among patients identified as having skin of color (SOC), which often refers to patients of non-White race or non-European ancestry, but can broadly include individuals from a number of different racial, ethnic, ancestral, and skin pigmentation groups based on definition. In this narrative review, we discuss key terminology as it relates to AD across shades of skin, including modern definitions of 'race', 'ethnicity', and 'SOC'. We then synthesize the current literature describing disparities in AD prevalence, disease recognition, and burden alongside current data regarding genetic and immunologic findings across SOC populations. In the context of these findings, we highlight key concomitant social determinants of health, including environmental factors, socioeconomic status, and access to care, for which race often serves as a proxy for true biological and genetic differences. Finally, we discuss future efforts to shift to a more inclusive understanding of AD to encompass all shades of skin, to ensure equitable representation of diverse populations in high impact research, and intensify efforts to address the critical upstream factors driving observed disparities.

Diagnosing Disorders of Hypopigmentation and Depigmentation in Patients with Skin of Color

Skin hypopigmentation and depigmentation disorders are a top concern for patients with skin of color seeking care from a dermatologist. The visual contrast between involved and uninvolved skin in these disorders makes them particularly burdensome for patients with skin of color. These disorders may have a wide differential of diagnosis, as patients with skin of color may present differently or more frequently than White patients for certain conditions. Clues from a comprehensive history and physical examination with standard lighting and a Wood's light are essential for clinching the diagnosis, although a biopsy may be warranted in special cases.

Overview of Atopic Dermatitis in Different Ethnic Groups

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a common chronic inflammatory skin disease with a high prevalence worldwide, including countries from Asia, Africa, and Latin America, and in different ethnic groups. In recent years, more attention has been placed on the heterogeneity of AD associated with multiple factors, including a patient's ethnic background, resulting in an increasing body of clinical, genetic, epidemiologic, and immune-phenotypic evidence that delineates differences in AD among racial groups. Filaggrin (FLG) mutations, the strongest genetic risk factor for the development of AD, are detected in up to 50% of European and 27% of Asian AD patients, but very rarely in Africans. Th2 hyperactivation is a common attribute of all ethnic groups, though the Asian endotype of AD is also characterized by an increased Th17-mediated signal, whereas African Americans show a strong Th2/Th22 signature and an absence of Th1/Th17 skewing. In addition, the ethnic heterogeneity of AD may hold important therapeutic implications as a patient's genetic predisposition may affect treatment response and, thereby, a tailored strategy that better targets the dominant immunologic pathways in each ethnic subgroup may be envisaged. Nevertheless, white patients with AD represent the largest ethnicity enrolled and tested in clinical trials and the most treated in a real-world setting, limiting investigations about safety and efficacy across different ethnicities. The purpose of this review is to describe the heterogeneity in the pathophysiology of AD across ethnicities and its potential therapeutic implications.

Phototherapy for atopic eczema

BACKGROUND

Atopic eczema (AE), also known as atopic dermatitis, is a chronic inflammatory skin condition that causes significant burden. Phototherapy is sometimes used to treat AE when topical treatments, such as corticosteroids, are insufficient or poorly tolerated.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of phototherapy for treating AE.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov to January 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials in adults or children with any subtype or severity of clinically diagnosed AE. Eligible comparisons were any type of phototherapy versus other forms of phototherapy or any other treatment, including placebo or no treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodology. For key findings, we used RoB 2.0 to assess bias, and GRADE to assess certainty of the evidence. Primary outcomes were physician-assessed signs and patient-reported symptoms. Secondary outcomes were Investigator Global Assessment (IGA), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), safety (measured as withdrawals due to adverse events), and long-term control.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 32 trials with 1219 randomised participants, aged 5 to 83 years (mean: 28 years), with an equal number of males and females. Participants were recruited mainly from secondary care dermatology clinics, and study duration was, on average, 13 weeks (range: 10 days to one year). We assessed risk of bias for all key outcomes as having some concerns or high risk, due to missing data, inappropriate analysis, or insufficient information to assess selective reporting. Assessed interventions included: narrowband ultraviolet B (NB-UVB; 13 trials), ultraviolet A1 (UVA1; 6 trials), broadband ultraviolet B (BB-UVB; 5 trials), ultraviolet AB (UVAB; 2 trials), psoralen plus ultraviolet A (PUVA; 2 trials), ultraviolet A (UVA; 1 trial), unspecified ultraviolet B (UVB; 1 trial), full spectrum light (1 trial), Saalmann selective ultraviolet phototherapy (SUP) cabin (1 trial), saltwater bath plus UVB (balneophototherapy; 1 trial), and excimer laser (1 trial). Comparators included placebo, no treatment, another phototherapy, topical treatment, or alternative doses of the same treatment. Results for key comparisons are summarised (for scales, lower scores are better): NB-UVB versus placebo/no treatment There may be a larger reduction in physician-assessed signs with NB-UVB compared to placebo after 12 weeks of treatment (mean difference (MD) -9.4, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.62 to -15.18; 1 trial, 41 participants; scale: 0 to 90). Two trials reported little difference between NB-UVB and no treatment (37 participants, four to six weeks of treatment); another reported improved signs with NB-UVB versus no treatment (11 participants, nine weeks of treatment). NB-UVB may increase the number of people reporting reduced itch after 12 weeks of treatment compared to placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.72, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.69; 1 trial, 40 participants). Another trial reported very little difference in itch severity with NB-UVB (25 participants, four weeks of treatment). The number of participants with moderate to greater global improvement may be higher with NB-UVB than placebo after 12 weeks of treatment (RR 2.81, 95% CI 1.10 to 7.17; 1 trial, 41 participants). NB-UVB may not affect rates of withdrawal due to adverse events. No withdrawals were reported in one trial of NB-UVB versus placebo (18 participants, nine weeks of treatment). In two trials of NB-UVB versus no treatment, each reported one withdrawal per group (71 participants, 8 to 12 weeks of treatment). We judged that all reported outcomes were supported with low-certainty evidence, due to risk of bias and imprecision. No trials reported HRQoL. NB-UVB versus UVA1 We judged the evidence for NB-UVB compared to UVA1 to be very low certainty for all outcomes, due to risk of bias and imprecision. There was no evidence of a difference in physician-assessed signs after six weeks (MD -2.00, 95% CI -8.41 to 4.41; 1 trial, 46 participants; scale: 0 to 108), or patient-reported itch after six weeks (MD 0.3, 95% CI -1.07 to 1.67; 1 trial, 46 participants; scale: 0 to 10). Two split-body trials (20 participants, 40 sides) also measured these outcomes, using different scales at seven to eight weeks; they reported lower scores with NB-UVB. One trial reported HRQoL at six weeks (MD 2.9, 95% CI -9.57 to 15.37; 1 trial, 46 participants; scale: 30 to 150). One split-body trial reported no withdrawals due to adverse events over 12 weeks (13 participants). No trials reported IGA. NB-UVB versus PUVA We judged the evidence for NB-UVB compared to PUVA (8-methoxypsoralen in bath plus UVA) to be very low certainty for all reported outcomes, due to risk of bias and imprecision. There was no evidence of a difference in physician-assessed signs after six weeks (64.1% reduction with NB-UVB versus 65.7% reduction with PUVA; 1 trial, 10 participants, 20 sides). There was no evidence of a difference in marked improvement or complete remission after six weeks (odds ratio (OR) 1.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 7.89; 1 trial, 9/10 participants with both treatments). One split-body trial reported no withdrawals due to adverse events in 10 participants over six weeks. The trials did not report patient-reported symptoms or HRQoL. UVA1 versus PUVA There was very low-certainty evidence, due to serious risk of bias and imprecision, that PUVA (oral 5-methoxypsoralen plus UVA) reduced physician-assessed signs more than UVA1 after three weeks (MD 11.3, 95% CI -0.21 to 22.81; 1 trial, 40 participants; scale: 0 to 103). The trial did not report patient-reported symptoms, IGA, HRQoL, or withdrawals due to adverse events. There were no eligible trials for the key comparisons of UVA1 or PUVA compared with no treatment. Adverse events Reported adverse events included low rates of phototoxic reaction, severe irritation, UV burn, bacterial superinfection, disease exacerbation, and eczema herpeticum.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to placebo or no treatment, NB-UVB may improve physician-rated signs, patient-reported symptoms, and IGA after 12 weeks, without a difference in withdrawal due to adverse events. Evidence for UVA1 compared to NB-UVB or PUVA, and NB-UVB compared to PUVA was very low certainty. More information is needed on the safety and effectiveness of all aspects of phototherapy for treating AE.

Phototherapy in Skin of Color

Phototherapy in skin of color requires special consideration. Pigmented skin is an efficient ultraviolet filter. Hence, higher doses of ultraviolet radiation are generally more effective and well tolerated in skin of color. An objective and practical system has not yet been established to determine optimal phototherapy dosing in skin of color. The authors recommend obtaining a detailed history of each individual patient's response to sun exposure before prescribing a phototherapy dosing regimen. In addition, providers should consider the role of socioeconomic factors and their impact on phototherapy-related outcomes, including barriers to access and compliance.

Lasers and light-based therapies in ethnic skin: treatment options and recommendations for Fitzpatrick skin types V and VI

Ethnic skin or 'skin of colour', which is characterized by increased epidermal melanin, labile melanocytes and reactive fibroblast responses, poses special challenges for the use of laser and light-based therapies. These therapies are associated with a greater risk of dyspigmentation and scarring in ethnic skin and therefore require careful selection of device and treatment parameters to minimize complications. Whereas early-generation lasers for hair removal and resurfacing were generally contraindicated for individuals with Fitzpatrick skin phototypes (SPT) IV-VI, advances in the past decade have given rise to a range of devices that can be safely used in ethnic skin. Longer wavelength lasers such as the 810 and 1064 nm Nd:YAG; intense pulsed light and monochromatic excimer light (308 nm); fractional lasers; and radiofrequency devices have all been used safely for hair removal, pigmentary abnormalities, resurfacing and skin tightening in ethnic skin, respectively. Notwithstanding these advances, nuances in the laser or light treatment of darker skin types remain and must be considered to ensure safe therapeutic outcomes. The vast majority of published data pertaining to lasers and light treatments in nonwhite skin involve patients of East Asian ethnicity (e.g. Korean, Japanese, Chinese, Thai). By contrast, there is a paucity of studies involving individuals of African ancestry or those with SPT V or VI. This article will review laser and light-based modalities that are considered safe and effective for individuals with richly pigmented skin.

Measurement of disease severity in cutaneous autoimmune diseases

The development of disease-specific outcome instruments for several autoimmune skin diseases including cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE), dermatomyositis, vitiligo, pemphigus and alopecia areata has facilitated the objective assessment of disease in clinical trials. Validation of these instruments provides reliable tools to measure disease severity and therapeutic effect in clinical studies. However, the existence of multiple outcome measures for each disease and the lack of uniformity between studies has created a challenge in comparing results across trials. Efforts to address this issue include the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative and international meetings directed at reaching a consensus. Other challenges with the use of outcome measures include difficulties measuring change in mild disease, measuring response in topical studies, and capturing disease activity in skin with extensive post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation.