Efficacy of ultraviolet A1 phototherapy for inflammatory, sclerotic and neoplastic dermatological diseases: A 10-year tertiary referral center experience

Phototherapy for the treatment of cutaneous graft-versus-host disease: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Cutaneous graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) is a common complication of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Phototherapy has been used to treat cutaneous GVHD, but data on its safety and efficacy are sparse.

AIM

Review the current medical literature regarding the efficacy, dosing, and safety of various types of phototherapies for the treatment of cutaneous GVHD.

METHODS

A systematic review of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials databases was performed. Publications were screened according to the PRISMA guidelines. Exclusion criteria comprised case reports and case series reporting less than five patients, review articles, and articles not published in English.

RESULTS

A total of 28/1304 (2.5%) studies were included. Fifteen studies (n = 267 patients) focused on psoralen and ultraviolet (UV) A (PUVA), in which 65.5% of patients received concomitantly other systemic treatments. The response rate was 89.9%, with a mean of 33.2 treatments. Adverse events were recorded in 54% but were mainly mild. Eight studies, encompassing 95 patients, focused on narrow-band (NB) UVB. A response was observed in 94%, with a mean number of 26 treatments and 8.6% adverse effects. UVA1 was reported in six studies (n = 132 patients). A response was recorded in 89.3% with a mean of 26.2 treatments. Adverse events were noted in 70.1%, with a discontinuation rate of 10.9%. It should be noted that adverse events were recorded during the follow-up period of the studies, which varied significantly, ranging from no follow-up to 31 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Current data regarding the use of phototherapy for the treatment of cutaneous GVHD are based on retrospective studies and case series. The present report advocates the use of one of the three modalities of phototherapy as an effective and safe adjunctive treatment for cutaneous GVHD, especially NB UVB phototherapy.

S2k guideline: Diagnosis and therapy of localized scleroderma

The updated S2k guideline deals with the diagnosis and therapy of localized scleroderma (LoS). LoS represents a spectrum of sclerotic skin diseases in which, depending on the subtype and localisation, structures such as adipose tissue, muscles, joints, and bones may also be affected. Involvement of internal organs or progression to systemic sclerosis does not occur. LoS can be classified into four main forms: limited, generalized, linear, and mixed forms, with some additional subtypes. For cases of limited skin involvement, the guideline primarily recommends therapy with topical corticosteroids. UV therapy can also be recommended. In subtypes with severe skin or musculoskeletal involvement, systemic therapy with methotrexate is recommended. During the active phase of the disease, systemic glucocorticosteroids can be used additionally. In cases of methotrexate and steroid refractory courses, contraindications, or intolerance, mycophenolate mofetil, mycophenolic acid, or abatacept can be considered as second-line systemic therapies. In the case of linear LoS, autologous adipose-derived stem cell transplantation can also be performed for correcting soft tissue defects.

S2k‐Leitlinie: Diagnostik und Therapie der zirkumskripten Sklerodermie

Die vorliegende aktualisierte S2k‐Leitlinie befasst sich mit der Diagnostik und der Therapie der zirkumskripten Sklerodermie (ZS). Diese umfasst ein Spektrum sklerotischer Erkrankungen der Haut mit, je nach Subtyp und Lokalisation, möglicher Beteiligung von hautnahen Strukturen wie Fettgewebe, Muskulatur, Gelenke und Knochen. Ein Befall innerer Organe oder ein Übergang in eine systemische Sklerodermie treten nicht auf. Eingeteilt werden kann die ZS in die vier Hauptformen der limitierten, generalisierten, linearen und gemischten Form. Teilweise existieren weitere Unterformen. Bei limitiertem Hautbefall empfiehlt die Leitlinie primär eine Therapie mit topischen Kortikosteroiden. Eine UV‐Therapie kann ebenfalls sinnvoll sein. Bei Subtypen mit schwerem Hautbefall oder muskuloskelettalem Befall wird eine systemische Therapie mit Methotrexat empfohlen. In der aktiven Phase der Erkrankung können ergänzend systemische Glukokortikosteroide eingesetzt werden. Bei MTX‐ und Steroid‐refraktären Verläufen, Kontraindikation oder Unverträglichkeit sollten Mycophenolat‐Mofetil, Mycophenolsäure oder Abatacept als Systemtherapie der zweiten Wahl eingesetzt werden. Bei einer linearen ZS kann zudem eine autologe Fettstammzelltransplantation zur Korrektur von Weichteildefekten erfolgen.

The realistic positioning of UVA1 phototherapy after 25 years of clinical experience and the availability of new biologics and small molecules: a retrospective clinical study

BACKGROUND

Since the early 1990s, Ultraviolet (UV) A1 phototherapy has been described as an effective and safe treatment of a multitude of skin disorders. However, after 30 years, its use has remained limited to few dermatological centers.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the changes over the years and the current position of UVA1 phototherapy through a Real-World Evidence (RWE) study at a single tertiary referral center.

METHODS

We reviewed the medical files of 740 patients treated between 1998 and 2022. Treatment results were collected, efficacy was assessed by a grading scale and acute adverse effects were registered.

RESULTS

We treated patients with 26 different diseases. We registered marked improvement (MI) or complete remission (CR) in 42.8% of patients with morphea, 50% with Urticaria Pigmentosa, 40.7% with Granuloma annulare and 85.7% with skin sarcoidosis. Good results were obtained also in the treatment of chronic Graft Versus Host Disease (GVHD), Eosinophilic Fasciitis, Sclero-atrophic Lichen, skin manifestations of systemic lupus erythematosus and psoriasis of HIV+ patients. Systemic Sclerosis, Romberg's Syndrome, Bushke's Scleredema, Nephrogenic Fibrosing Dermopathy, REM Syndrome, Follicular Mucinosis, Pretibial Myxedema, Scleromyxedema, pemphigus foliaceus, chronic cutaneous lupus erythematosus, erythroderma of Netherton Syndrome and Necrobiosis Lipoidica were no or poorly responsive. In clinical indications where UVA1 was used as a second line phototherapy after narrow-band (NB)-UVB, we saw good MI or CR rates in Mycosis Fungoides (57% of patients), Atopic Dermatitis (33.9%), Pitiryasis Lichenoides chronica (50%), Pityriasis Lichenoides et varioliformis acute (75%) and Lymphomatod Papulosis (62.5%). Short-term adverse events were uncommon and mild.

CONCLUSION

Over the past decade, the annual number of treated patients has progressively declined for several reasons. Firstly, UVA1 phototherapy has taken a backseat to the cheaper and more practical NB-UVB phototherapy, which has proven effective for common indications. Secondly, the emergence of new, safe, and effective drugs for conditions such as atopic dermatitis, GVHD, and connective tissue disorders. Finally, our research has shown that UVA1 therapy is often ineffective or minimally effective for some rare diseases, contrary to previous case reports and small case series. Nonetheless, UVA1 continues to be a valuable treatment option for patients with specific skin disorders.