Ultraviolet A1 Phototherapy for Fibrosing Conditions

EuroGuiderm guideline on lichen sclerosus-Treatment of lichen sclerosus

INTRODUCTION

Lichen sclerosus (LS) is an inflammatory skin disease affecting all ages. LS typically involves the anogenital site where it causes itching and soreness; it may lead to sexual and urinary dysfunction in females and males; however, it may be asymptomatic. First signs of LS are usually a whitening of the genital skin, sometimes preceded by redness and oedema; fissuring, scarring, shrinkage and fusion of structures may follow in its course. LS is associated with an increased risk of genital cancer. LS has a huge impact on the quality of life of affected patients, and it is important to raise more awareness of this not uncommon disease in order to diagnose and treat it early.

OBJECTIVES

The guideline intends to provide guidance on the diagnostic of LS (part 1), highlight important aspects in the care of LS patients, generate recommendations and treatment algorithms (part 2) on topical, interventional and surgical therapy, based on the latest evidence, provide guidance in the management of LS patients during pregnancy, provide guidance for the follow-up of patients with LS and inform about new developments and potential research aspects.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The guideline was developed in accordance with the EuroGuiDerm Methods Manual v1.3 https://www.edf.one/de/home/Guidelines/EDF-EuroGuiDerm.html. The wording of the recommendations was standardized (as suggested by the GRADE Working Group). The guideline development group is comprised of 34 experts from 16 countries, including 5 patient representatives.

RESULTS

Ultrapotent or potent topical corticosteroids in females and males, adults and children remain gold standard of care for genital LS; co-treatment with emollients is recommended. If standard treatment fails in males, a surgical intervention is recommended, complete circumcision may cure LS in males. UV light treatment is recommended for extragenital LS; however, there is limited scientific evidence. Topical calcineurin inhibitors are second line treatment. Laser treatment, using various wave lengths, is under investigation, and it can currently not be recommended for the treatment of LS. Treatment with biologics is only reported in single cases.

CONCLUSIONS

LS has to be diagnosed and treated as early as possible in order to minimize sequelae like scarring and cancer development. Topical potent and ultrapotent corticosteroids are the gold standard of care; genital LS is often a lifelong disease and needs to be treated long-term.

[Localized scleroderma]

Localized scleroderma (LS), also called circumscribed scleroderma or morphea, comprises a heterogeneous group of diseases that can be classified into four subtypes: limited, linear, generalized, and mixed LS. All manifestations are primarily due to chronic progressive fibrosis of the skin or structures close to the skin. Involvement of internal organs or the transition to systemic sclerosis is excluded by definition. A distinction is made between forms that primarily affect the skin (up to the dermis) or that severely involve subcutaneous fat tissue, muscle fascia or muscles. A detailed examination is required for clinical diagnosis. In order to improve comparability of findings, photo documentation and the use of clinical scores should be carried out. For superficial subtypes the use of topical glucocorticosteroids, calcineurin inhibitors or phototherapy is initially recommended, whereas for severe forms with deep involvement or overall therapy refractoriness, the diagnosis should first be expanded and systemic therapy initiated at an early stage. Especially, in cross joint or extremity-dominant forms of linear LS or in cases with head and neck involvement, such as en coup de sabre, Parry-Romberg syndrome and other subtypes with a prominent musculoskeletal affection, an MRI examination should be arranged. Depending on location, an ophthalmological, neurological, orthodontic, rheumatological or orthopedic consultation may be necessary. For systemic therapy, methotrexate alone or in combination with systemic glucocorticosteroids as pulse therapy is recommended as first-line treatment.

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

BACKGROUND

Ultraviolet (UV) A1 phototherapy is considered a beneficial treatment for various inflammatory, sclerotic, malignant, and other skin conditions. However, the available data regarding its efficacy for different indications, the potential side effects, and the recommended treatment protocols are sparse.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of UVA1 phototherapy and identify correlation between different indications and treatment protocols to response rates.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study of a cohort of 335 patients treated with UVA1 phototherapy at the Department of Dermatology at Hadassah Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel, between 2008 and 2018.

RESULTS

The study population included 163 patients with inflammatory diseases (mainly atopic dermatitis and other types of eczema), 67 patients with sclerotic diseases (morphea and graft versus host disease), nine patients with neoplastic diseases (cutaneous T cell lymphoma), and 188 patients with other cutaneous disorders. Response rates ranged between 85% and 89% across indications, without differences in response rates among the indication groups (p = .941). In a multivariant logistic regression model, increased number of treatments and higher maximal dosages were associated with response to treatment (p < .001). Using ROC analysis, a cut-off of 8 UVA1 phototherapy treatments was chosen as predictive for beneficial response (86.4% sensitivity, 78% specificity). A cut-off of 40 J/cm² was chosen as an optimal maximal dosage for differentiating between responders and non-responders (51.1% sensitivity, 83.1% specificity).

CONCLUSIONS

UVA1 phototherapy is an effective treatment for a variety of skin conditions. In most patients, at least eight treatments of a medium-high dosage are required for clinical response.

Efficacy and Satisfaction of Low Doses UVA1 Phototherapy: A Spanish Experience from a Single Centre

Background: UVA1 phototherapy is a treatment used for multiple dermatological conditions. The optimal therapeutic regimens and dosing of UVA1 are a matter of debate. The dosages used vary widely between published studies and there are no evidence-based protocols that provide data on dosage, duration, or the role of maintenance therapy. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the experience in our medical center regarding treatment with UVA1, as well as the degree of patient satisfaction with the treatment according to their pathology. Methods: We present a retrospective evaluation of outcomes, treatment tolerability, and satisfaction in adult patients using a low dose of UVA1 phototherapy, administered in our dermatologic service between 2019 and 2022. Results: A total of 78 patients were treated with UVA1, of whom 46 patients (59%) were over 18 years old, completed treatment, and gave their consent. The overall objective clinical response rate was 91.30% (42/46), achieving a complete response in 17 (36.96%) patients, partial response in 25 (54.34%), and no response in 4 (8.70%). The complete response rates recorded were high in morphea, scleredema, or chronic hand eczema. In terms of the level of satisfaction objectively measured by TSQM-9 version 1.4, highlighting high scores obtained in mastocytosis, systemic sclerosis, morphea, scleredema, chronic hand eczema, or prurigo nodularis (over 65 points). Conclusions: We present a review of treatment with UVA1 phototherapy at low doses with good response in a wide variety of dermatological pathologies.

The Damaging Effects of Long UVA (UVA1) Rays: A Major Challenge to Preserve Skin Health and Integrity

Within solar ultraviolet (UV) light, the longest UVA1 wavelengths, with significant and relatively constant levels all year round and large penetration properties, produce effects in all cutaneous layers. Their effects, mediated by numerous endogenous chromophores, primarily involve the generation of reactive oxygen species (ROS). The resulting oxidative stress is the major mode of action of UVA1, responsible for lipid peroxidation, protein carbonylation, DNA lesions and subsequent intracellular signaling cascades. These molecular changes lead to mutations, apoptosis, dermis remodeling, inflammatory reactions and abnormal immune responses. The altered biological functions contribute to clinical consequences such as hyperpigmentation, inflammation, photoimmunosuppression, sun allergies, photoaging and photocancers. Such harmful impacts have also been reported after the use of UVA1 phototherapy or tanning beds. Furthermore, other external aggressors, such as pollutants and visible light (Vis), were shown to induce independent, cumulative and synergistic effects with UVA1 rays. In this review, we synthetize the biological and clinical effects of UVA1 and the complementary effects of UVA1 with pollutants or Vis. The identified deleterious biological impact of UVA1 contributing to clinical consequences, combined with the predominance of UVA1 rays in solar UV radiation, constitute a solid rational for the need for a broad photoprotection, including UVA1 up to 400 nm.

UVA-1 phototherapy as adjuvant treatment for eosinophilic fasciitis: in vitro and in vivo functional characterization

INTRODUCTION

Eosinophilic fasciitis (EF) is a rare autoimmune disease causing progressive induration of dermal, hypodermal, and muscularis fascia. The exact pathogenesis is yet to be fully understood, and a validated therapy protocol still lacks. We here aimed to realize a clinical-functional characterization of these patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of eight patients (five males, 45 years average) were treated with adjuvant high-dose UVA-1 phototherapy (90 J/cm), after having received the standard systemic immunosuppressive protocol (oral methylprednisolone switched to methotrexate). Body lesion mapping, Localized Scleroderma Assessment Tool (LoSCAT), Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), High-Resolution Ultrasound (HRUS) (13-17MHz), and ultra HRUS (55-70 MHz) were performed at each examination time taking specific anatomical points. Gene expression analysis at a molecular level and in vitro UVA-1 irradiation was realized on lesional fibroblasts primary cultures.

RESULTS

The LoSCAT and the DLQI showed to decrease significantly starting from the last UVA-1 session. A significant reduction in muscularis fascia thickness (-50% on average) was estimated starting from 3 months after the last UVA-1 session and maintained up to 12 months follow-up. Tissues was detected by HRUS. The UVA-1 in vitro irradiation of lesional skin sites cells appeared not to affect their viability. Molecular genes analysis revealed a significant reduction of IL-1ß and of TGF-ß genes after phototherapy, while MMPs 1,2,9 gene expression was enhanced.

COMMENT

These preliminary in vivo and in vitro findings suggest that UVA-1 phototherapy is a safe and useful adjuvant therapy able to elicit anti-inflammatory effects and stimulate tissue matrix digestion and remodeling at lesional sites.

Differences in phototherapy among skin diseases and genders in real-life conditions-A retrospective analysis of the cumulative doses, numbers of sessions, side effects and costs in 561 patients

BACKGROUND

Phototherapy has been a mainstay therapy for dermatological diseases since more than a century. Although phototherapy is still extensively used and some recommendations exist, only scarce data are available addressing disease-specific differences in cumulative doses, treatment durations and costs. Knowledge of such differences could help to avoid over-/undertreatment, predict treatment duration and costs. Therefore, we sought to determine differences in cumulative doses, numbers of sessions, side effects and costs among different skin diseases and genders in real-life conditions.

METHODS

In this single-centre, retrospective study, patients treated with phototherapy between March 2014 and April 2019 were classified into seven diagnostic groups and analysed according to the study goals.

RESULTS

Out of 561 patients (age 53.9 ± 20.3 yrs; 52.9% females), 83.7% percent were treated with cabin NB-UVB (mean cumulative dose 17.79 ± 17.11 J/cm² ). Patients with vitiligo and psoriasis were treated with significantly higher cumulative NB-UVB doses (cabin, local) in comparison with the five other diagnostic groups as were males in comparison with females. Consequently, significantly higher UV-related costs resulted in patients with vitiligo, psoriasis and males. Patients with atopic dermatitis and pruritus were treated with significantly higher cumulative UVA1 doses compared to patients with non-atopic eczema. The complication rate (pooled from all UV modalities) in our population was 3.8% (erythema 3.4%, aggravated itch 0.4% and worsening of symptoms 0.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results demonstrate that cumulative doses and phototherapy-related costs vary strongly among skin diseases-a fact not adequately considered in recommendations. A more disease-specific stratification of phototherapy could not only help to optimize outcomes, but also to facilitate comparability of clinical trials using phototherapy.

Transcriptome analysis of human dermal fibroblasts following red light phototherapy

Fibrosis occurs when collagen deposition and fibroblast proliferation replace healthy tissue. Red light (RL) may improve skin fibrosis via photobiomodulation, the process by which photosensitive chromophores in cells absorb visible or near-infrared light and undergo photophysical reactions. Our previous research demonstrated that high fluence RL reduces fibroblast proliferation, collagen deposition, and migration. Despite the identification of several cellular mechanisms underpinning RL phototherapy, little is known about the transcriptional changes that lead to anti-fibrotic cellular responses. Herein, RNA sequencing was performed on human dermal fibroblasts treated with RL phototherapy. Pathway enrichment and transcription factor analysis revealed regulation of extracellular matrices, proliferation, and cellular responses to oxygen-containing compounds following RL phototherapy. Specifically, RL phototherapy increased the expression of MMP1, which codes for matrix metalloproteinase-1 (MMP-1) and is responsible for remodeling extracellular collagen. Differential regulation of MMP1 was confirmed with RT-qPCR and ELISA. Additionally, RL upregulated PRSS35, which has not been previously associated with skin activity, but has known anti-fibrotic functions. Our results suggest that RL may benefit patients by altering fibrotic gene expression.

A deep dive into UV-based phototherapy: Mechanisms of action and emerging molecular targets in inflammation and cancer

UV-based phototherapy (including psoralen plus UVA (PUVA), UVB and UVA1) has a long, successful history in the management of numerous cutaneous disorders. Photoresponsive diseases are etiologically diverse, but most involve disturbances in local (and occasionally systemic) inflammatory cells and/or abnormalities in keratinocytes that trigger inflammation. UV-based phototherapy works by regulating the inflammatory component and inducing apoptosis of pathogenic cells. This results in a fascinating and complex network of simultaneous events-immediate transcriptional changes in keratinocytes, immune cells, and pigment cells; the emergence of apoptotic bodies; and the trafficking of antigen-presenting cells in skin-that quickly transform the microenvironment of UV-exposed skin. Molecular elements in this system of UV recognition and response include chromophores, metabolic byproducts, innate immune receptors, neurotransmitters and mediators such as chemokines and cytokines, antimicrobial peptides, and platelet activating factor (PAF) and PAF-like molecules that simultaneously shape the immunomodulatory effects of UV and their interplay with the microbiota of the skin and beyond. Phototherapy's key effects-proapoptotic, immunomodulatory, antipruritic, antifibrotic, propigmentary, and pro-prebiotic-promote clinical improvement in various skin diseases such as psoriasis, atopic dermatitis (AD), graft-versus-host disease (GvHD), vitiligo, scleroderma, and cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL) as well as prevention of polymorphic light eruption (PLE). As understanding of phototherapy improves, new therapies (UV- and non-UV-based) are being developed that will modify regulatory T-cells (Treg), interact with (resident) memory T-cells and /or utilize agonists and antagonists as well as antibodies targeting soluble molecules such as cytokines and chemokines, transcription factors, and a variety of membrane-associated receptors.

Keloids: a review of therapeutic management

Keloid scar formation arises from a disorganized fibroproliferative collagen response that extends beyond the original wound margins because of excessive production of extracellular matrix (ECM). Despite treatment options for keloid scars including medical and surgical therapies, such as intralesional steroid injection and surgical excision, the recurrence rate remains high. Herein we consolidate recently published narrative reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses to provide an overview of updated treatment recommendations for keloidal scar formation. PubMed search engine was used to access the MEDLINE database to investigate updates regarding keloid incidence and treatment. More than 100 articles were reviewed. Keloid management remains a multimodal approach. There continues to be no gold standard of treatment that provides a consistently low recurrence rate; however, the increasing number of available treatments and synergistic combinations of these treatments (i.e., laser-based devices in combination with intralesional steroids, or 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) in combination with steroid therapy) is showing favorable results. Future studies could target the efficacy of novel treatment modalities (i.e., autologous fat grafting or stem cell-based therapies) for keloid management. This review article provides updated treatment guidelines for keloids and discusses insight into management to assist patient-focused, evidence-based clinical decision making.

Biological effects of a new ultraviolet A1 prototype based on light-emitting diodes on the treatment of localized scleroderma

Ultraviolet A₁ (UVA₁ ) phototherapy (spectral range 340-400 nm) is a well-established treatment option for various skin diseases such as localized scleroderma. Recent improvements of conventional UVA₁ light sources (metal-halide or fluorescent lamps) have brought attention to a new light-emitting diode (LED) technology with remarkable advantages in handling and clinical routine. This study provides a preclinical histological and molecular evaluation of an LED-based UVA₁ prototype with a narrower spectral range (360-400 nm) for treating localized scleroderma. Scleroderma mouse models and fibroblasts in vitro were exposed to LED-based UVA₁ phototherapy or to irradiation with a commercially available metal-halide lamp emitting low-dose (20, 40 J/cm² ), medium-dose (60 J/cm² ) and high-dose (80, 100 J/cm² ) UVA₁ light. Both UVA₁ light sources affected inflammatory genes (IL-1α and IL-6) and growth factors (TGFß-1 and TGFß-2). Increased collagen type 1 was reduced after UVA₁ phototherapy. Matrix metalloproteinase-1 was more enhanced after a medium dose of LED-based UVA₁ phototherapy than after conventional treatment. In vivo, dermal thickness and the amount of collagen were reduced after both treatment methods. Remarkably, myofibroblasts were more effectively reduced by a medium dose of LED-based UVA₁ phototherapy. The study indicates that LED-based UVA₁ phototherapy yields similar or even better results than conventional treatment. In terms of biosafety and patient comfort, LED-based UVA₁ phototherapy offers clear advantages over conventional treatment because of the use of a narrower and less harmful UVA₁ spectrum, less heat generation and shorter treatment times at the same irradiation intensity. Clinical studies are required to confirm these results in patients with localized scleroderma.

Utilizing UVA-1 Phototherapy

There is a long history of utilization of phototherapy for treatment of skin conditions. Because of its longer wavelength, UVA1 phototherapy is able to penetrate into the dermis and subcutis. This depth of penetration, combined with its unique immunomodulating properties, makes UVA1 an effective treatment modality for many immune-mediated skin diseases. In some cases, it performs better than other types of phototherapy.

How It Works: The Immunology Underlying Phototherapy

Phototherapeutic modalities induce apoptosis of keratinocytes and immune cells, impact cytokine production, downregulate the IL-23/Th17 axis, and induce regulatory T cells. As in anti-IL-17 or anti-IL-23 antibody treatment, the dual action of phototherapy on skin and the immune system is likely responsible for sustained resolution of lesions in diseases such as psoriasis. In cutaneous T cell lymphoma, phototherapy may function by causing tumor cell apoptosis and eliminating the neoplastic and inflammatory infiltrate. Further research on phototherapeutic mechanisms will help advance, optimize, and refine dermatologic treatments and may open up novel avenues for treatment strategies in dermatology and beyond.

The efficacy of UVA1 phototherapy in psoriasis: Clinical and histological aspects

BACKGROUND

Although ultraviolet A1 (UVA1) phototherapy is available for nearly 30 years, only few studies have been conducted for plaque-type psoriasis.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and safety of UVA1 phototherapy in psoriasis by assessing the clinical and histological outcomes.

METHODS

This open study enrolled 15 patients with moderate to severe plaque-type psoriasis. All of the patients had skin type IV. A whole-body UVA1 device consisting of 24 lamps, was irradiated at a medium dose of 50 J/cm² three-times weekly for 30 sessions. Topical and systemic psoriasis treatments were discontinued before and during treatment; patients could only use emollients and antihistamines until 1-month post-completion. Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) scores were determined at baseline; at sessions 10th, 20th and 30th; and 1 month after treatment. Four-millimetre punch biopsies were obtained from the same psoriasis lesion at baseline and session 30th. Changes in histopathological gradings and polymorphonuclear, lymphocyte and Langerhans cell numbers were monitored.

RESULTS

Twelve patients completed the study. The mean age was 41.3 years (range: 25-71). The median PASI scores at baseline, session 30th and 1-month post-treatment were 16 (8.2, 43.3), 11 (4.4, 43.3) and 9.2 (2.7, 36.4), respectively. Although the PASI scores had improved significantly by 1-month post-treatment (P = .006), the histological parameters demonstrated minimal changes. All patients tolerated the phototherapy well and the most common side effect was skin tanning.

CONCLUSIONS

While medium-dose UVA1 phototherapy demonstrated some efficacy in moderate to severe plaque-type psoriasis. However, it might not be an excellent choice.