-
Dermatologic Therapy May 2021Existing guidelines form no consensus for alopecia areata (AA) treatment due to the absence of a universal standard treatment and arbitrary selection of reference arms... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Existing guidelines form no consensus for alopecia areata (AA) treatment due to the absence of a universal standard treatment and arbitrary selection of reference arms in randomized control trials (RCTs). The aim is to identify the best treatment and to rank treatments using systematic review and network meta-analysis. Data were extracted by the two investigators independently. Odds ratio (OR) of treatment success rate was pooled using the frequentist weighted least squares approach to random-model network meta-analysis. RCTs providing data of treatment success rate from PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and manual search were included. About 54 RCTs consisting of 49 treatments and 3149 patients were included. Pentoxifylline plus topical corticosteroids had the highest treatment success rate compared with "no treatment," followed by pentoxifylline alone, topical calcipotriol plus narrowband ultraviolet radiation B phototherapy, topical calcipotriol, intralesional corticosteroids, systemic corticosteroids, minoxidil plus topical corticosteroids, topical bimatoprost, psoralen ultraviolet radiation A phototherapy, and tofacitinib. Even with the network meta-analysis, the best treatment because of independent loops and wide confidence intervals could not be identified. Treatment options above may be reasonable strategies, but further comparison is required.
Topics: Alopecia Areata; Humans; Minoxidil; Network Meta-Analysis; Phototherapy; Ultraviolet Therapy
PubMed: 33631058
DOI: 10.1111/dth.14916 -
Journal of Sleep Research Dec 2023In the management of insomnia, physicians and patients are seeking alternative therapeutics to sleeping pills, in addition to sleep hygiene and cognitive behavioural... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
In the management of insomnia, physicians and patients are seeking alternative therapeutics to sleeping pills, in addition to sleep hygiene and cognitive behavioural therapy. Bright light therapy (LT) has proven its efficacy in circadian and mood disorders. We conducted a systematic literature review and meta-analysis according to Cochrane and PRISMA guidelines and using the databases Medline, Cochrane, and Web of Science, with a special focus on light therapy and insomnia. Twenty-two studies with a total of 685 participants were included, five of which with a high level of proof. Meta-analysis was performed with 13 of them: light therapy for insomnia compared with control conditions significantly improved wake after sleep onset (WASO: SMD = -0.61 [-1.11, -0.11]; p = 0.017; weighted difference of 11.2 min ±11.5 based on actigraphy, and SMD = -1.09 [-1.43, -0.74] (p < 0.001) weighted difference of -36.4 min ±15.05) based on sleep diary, but no other sleep measures such as sleep latency, total sleep time (TST), or sleep efficiency. Qualitative analysis of the review showed some improvement mainly in subjective measures. Morning light exposure advanced sleep-wake rhythms and evening exposure led to a delay. No worsening was observed in objective nor subjective measures, except for TST in one study with evening exposure. A light dose-response may exist but the studies' heterogeneity and publication bias limit the interpretation. To conclude, light therapy shows some effectiveness for sleep maintenance in insomnia disorders, but further research is needed to refine the light parameters to be chosen according to the type of insomnia, in the hope of developing personalised therapeutics.
Topics: Humans; Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders; Sleep; Phototherapy; Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Polysomnography; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37002704
DOI: 10.1111/jsr.13895 -
Dental and Medical Problems 2023Laser protocols for the treatment of dentin hypersensitivity (DH) have not yet been studied systematically. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Laser protocols for the treatment of dentin hypersensitivity (DH) have not yet been studied systematically.
OBJECTIVES
The present study aimed to review clinical trials on the treatment of DH with laser therapy through a systematic review and meta-analysis.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
The search of electronic databases resulted in 562 publications up to April 2020. The inclusion criteria were studies carried out on humans and reporting on the treatment of DH with laser therapy. Case reports, literature reviews and systematic reviews were excluded. Selected by abstract, potentially eligible papers were read in full (n = 160). Independent examiners performed data extraction and the assessment of the risk of bias.
RESULTS
A total of 34 studies were included in the analysis, and 11 in the quantitative analysis. It was observed that most studies followed up patients for a maximum of 6 months (55%). Through the meta-analysis, we observed statistically significant differences between the average pain before and after 3 months of treatment with highand low-power lasers. However, through indirect comparisons, it was observed that the high-power laser showed a greater tendency to reduce the pain levels after 3 months of treatment as compared to the low-power laser, but without a statistically significant difference.
CONCLUSIONS
It was possible to conclude that regardless of the type of laser used in the treatment of DH, this treatment is an effective option for the control of pain symptoms. However, it was not possible to establish a defined treatment protocol, since the evaluation methods are very different from each other. Text for Rewiew and clinical cases.
Topics: Humans; Dentin Sensitivity; Laser Therapy; Low-Level Light Therapy; Treatment Outcome; Lasers
PubMed: 37023343
DOI: 10.17219/dmp/151482 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2021Atopic eczema (AE), also known as atopic dermatitis, is a chronic inflammatory skin condition that causes significant burden. Phototherapy is sometimes used to treat AE... (Review)
Review
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.
Topics: Adult; Child; Dermatitis, Atopic; Eczema; Female; Humans; Male; Phototherapy; Quality of Life; Ultraviolet Therapy
PubMed: 34709669
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013870.pub2 -
Journal of Periodontology Jul 2018This systematic review evaluates the efficacy of antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT), as an adjunct to non-surgical or surgical therapy, on clinical and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
This systematic review evaluates the efficacy of antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT), as an adjunct to non-surgical or surgical therapy, on clinical and patient-centered outcomes in patients with periodontitis or peri-implantitis.
METHODS
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with a follow-up duration ≥ 3 months that evaluated mechanical root/implant surface debridement (i.e., scaling and root planing [SRP] or implant surface scaling [ISS]) versus SRP or ISS plus aPDT for the treatment of adult patients (≥ 18 years old) with moderate-to-severe chronic (CP)/aggressive periodontitis (AgP) or peri-implantitis, respectively, were considered eligible for inclusion. The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases were searched for articles published up to and including March 2017. Random-effects meta-analyses were used throughout the review using continuous data (i.e., mean changes from baseline), and pooled estimates were expressed as weighted mean differences with their associated 95% confidence intervals. Additionally, summaries are presented of the included RCTs, critical remarks of the literature, and evidence quality rating/strength of recommendation of laser procedures.
RESULTS
Of 729 potentially eligible articles, 28 papers (26 studies) were included in the review. Individual study outcomes and four sets of meta-analysis showed potential statistical significant benefit of aPDT in improving clinical attachment level (CAL) (non-surgical treatment of AgP) and probing depth (PD) (non-surgical treatment of AgP and CP). However, the comparative differences in clinical outcomes were modest (< 1 mm), and the level of certainty for different therapies was considered low-to-moderate (i.e., more information would be necessary to allow for a reliable and definitive estimation of effect/magnitude of therapies on health outcomes). Overall, most of the strengths of clinical recommendations of aPDT were guided by the expert opinion.
CONCLUSIONS
aPDT may provide similar clinical improvements in PD and CAL when compared with conventional periodontal therapy for both periodontitis and peri-implantitis patients. The restricted base of evidence for some treatment approaches and conditions precludes additional conclusions.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Anti-Infective Agents; Dental Scaling; Humans; Peri-Implantitis; Photochemotherapy; Root Planing; United States
PubMed: 30133749
DOI: 10.1902/jop.2017.170172 -
Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) Oct 2021Acne is a dermatosis that affects almost 90% of the adolescent population worldwide and its treatment is performed with retinoids, antimicrobials, acids, and topical or... (Review)
Review
Acne is a dermatosis that affects almost 90% of the adolescent population worldwide and its treatment is performed with retinoids, antimicrobials, acids, and topical or systemic antibiotics. Side effects such as skin irritation in addition to microbial resistance to antibiotics are the main side effects found. Phototherapy with blue light is being used as an alternative treatment. Our objective was to analyze the use of blue light to treat inflammatory acne. We conducted a systematic literature review, following the recommendation PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and MetaAnalyses), including in the sample randomized clinical trial studies that compared blue light with another intervention as control. The research was carried out in the PUBMED and WEB of SCIENCE databases and the methodological quality of the studies evaluated were made by the Cochrane Collaboration Bias Risk Scale. After the exclusion of duplicates, the titles and abstracts of 81 articles were evaluated, and 50 articles were selected for full reading, including in the review at the end 8 articles. Studies have shown significant improvements in the overall picture of acne. It is concluded that despite the great potential in its use in the treatment of acne, there is a need for more detailed trials on the effect of blue light on the treatment of inflammatory acne.
Topics: Acne Vulgaris; Adolescent; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Data Management; Humans; Light; Phototherapy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34696155
DOI: 10.3390/s21206943 -
The Journal of Dermatological Treatment Feb 2022Vitiligo is an autoimmune disorder characterized by progressive loss of melanocytes, leading to cutaneous depigmentation. Vitiligo has significant psychosocial impacts... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Vitiligo is an autoimmune disorder characterized by progressive loss of melanocytes, leading to cutaneous depigmentation. Vitiligo has significant psychosocial impacts on patients and is challenging to manage with limited treatment options. Recent studies have suggested promising results for JAK1/3 inhibitors including tofacitinib and ruxolitinib.
OBJECTIVE
To determine the expected response of vitiligo to JAK inhibitor therapy and factors which influence response rates.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. Good response was defined as repigmentation >50% or a 'good' or 'excellent' outcome as described by authors. Partial response was defined as some repigmentation <50%.
RESULTS
From the 9 eligible studies, individual patient data from 45 cases were pooled. Good response was achieved in 57.8%, partial response in 22.2%, and none or minimal response in 20% of cases. When subgrouped according to site, facial vitiligo had the highest good response rate (70%), compared to extremities (27.3%) and torso/non-sun exposed areas (13.6%). Concurrent phototherapy was significant associated with higher rates of good overall response ( < .001) and good facial response ( < .001).
CONCLUSIONS
There is promising low-quality evidence regarding the effectiveness of JAK inhibitors in vitiligo. Concurrent UVB phototherapy appears to improve efficacy of JAK inhibitors for vitiligo.
Topics: Humans; Janus Kinase Inhibitors; Janus Kinases; Phototherapy; Skin Pigmentation; Treatment Outcome; Ultraviolet Therapy; Vitiligo
PubMed: 32096671
DOI: 10.1080/09546634.2020.1735615 -
Canadian Journal of Psychiatry. Revue... Oct 2022To determine the efficacy and safety of blue-light therapy in seasonal and non-seasonal major depressive disorder (MDD), by comparison to active and inactive control... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
To determine the efficacy and safety of blue-light therapy in seasonal and non-seasonal major depressive disorder (MDD), by comparison to active and inactive control conditions.
METHODS
We searched Web of Science, EMBASE, Medline, PsycInfo, and Clinicaltrials.gov through January 17, 2022, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using search terms for blue/blue-enhanced, light therapy, and depression/seasonal affective disorder. Two independent reviewers extracted data. The primary outcome was the difference in endpoint scores on the Structured Interview Guide for the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale - Seasonal Affective Disorder (SIGH-SAD) or the Structured Interview Guide for the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale with Atypical Depression Supplement (SIGH-ADS) between blue light and comparison conditions. Secondary outcomes were response (≥ 50% improvement from baseline to endpoint on a depression scale) and remission rates (endpoint score in the remission range).
RESULTS
Of 582 articles retrieved, we included nine RCTs ( = 347 participants) assessing blue-light therapy. Seven studies had participants with seasonal MDD and two studies included participants with non-seasonal MDD. Four studies compared blue light to an inactive light condition (efficacy studies), and five studies compared it to an active condition (comparison studies). For the primary outcome, a meta-analysis with random-effects models found no evidence for the efficacy of blue-light conditions compared to inactive conditions (mean difference [MD] = 2.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.28 to 6.14, = 0.20); however, blue-light also showed no differences compared to active conditions (MD = -0.11; 95% CI, -2.38 to 2.16, = 0.93). There were no significant differences in response and remission rates between blue-light conditions and inactive or active light conditions. Blue-light therapy was overall well-tolerated.
CONCLUSIONS
The efficacy of blue-light therapy in the treatment of seasonal and non-seasonal MDD remains unproven. Future trials should be of longer duration, include larger sample sizes, and attempt to better standardize the parameters of light therapy.
Topics: Depression; Depressive Disorder, Major; Humans; Phototherapy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Seasonal Affective Disorder
PubMed: 35522196
DOI: 10.1177/07067437221097903 -
International Journal of Molecular... Apr 2023Low-level laser therapy (LLLT) is a treatment that is increasingly used in orthopedics practices. In vivo and in vitro studies have shown that low-level laser therapy... (Review)
Review
Low-level laser therapy (LLLT) is a treatment that is increasingly used in orthopedics practices. In vivo and in vitro studies have shown that low-level laser therapy (LLLT) promotes angiogenesis, fracture healing and osteogenic differentiation of stem cells. However, the underlying mechanisms during bone formation remain largely unknown. Factors such as wavelength, energy density, irradiation and frequency of LLLT can influence the cellular mechanisms. Moreover, the effects of LLLT are different according to cell types treated. This review aims to summarize the current knowledge of the molecular pathways activated by LLLT and its effects on the bone healing process. A better understanding of the cellular mechanisms activated by LLLT can improve its clinical application.
Topics: Osteogenesis; Low-Level Light Therapy; Fracture Healing; Stem Cells; Cell Differentiation
PubMed: 37108257
DOI: 10.3390/ijms24087094 -
Journal of Periodontology Jul 2018Peri-implant diseases are prevalent, with numerous therapies studied in an attempt to combat this condition. The present review aims to systematically evaluate the...
BACKGROUND
Peri-implant diseases are prevalent, with numerous therapies studied in an attempt to combat this condition. The present review aims to systematically evaluate the effectiveness of laser therapy with non-surgical or surgical therapy in managing peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis.
METHODS
An electronic search of three databases and a hand search of peer-reviewed journals for relevant articles published (in English) from January 1980 to June 2016 were performed. Human clinical trials of ≥ 10 patients with peri-implant diseases, treated with surgical or non-surgical approaches and laser therapy, and a follow-up period of ≥ 6 months, were included. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed to analyze weighted mean difference (WMD) and confidence interval for the recorded variables according to PRISMA guidelines. Risk of bias assessment was also performed for randomized controlled trials included.
RESULTS
From 22 articles selected, 11 were included in the meta-analyses. The outcomes of using lasers as a monotherapy could not be evaluated since no controlled studies were identified. Therefore, all reported results were the outcomes of applying lasers as an adjunct to surgical/non-surgical treatment. For the non-surgical approach, WMD of probing depth (PD), clinical attachment level (CAL), bleeding on probing (BOP), plaque index (PI), marginal bone level (MBL) and recession (REC) was 0.15 mm (P = 0.50), -0.10 mm (P = 0.32), 21.08% (P = 0.02), -0.07 (P = 0.002), -0.22 mm (P = 0.04) and -0.11 mm (P = 0.34), respectively. For the surgical approach with a long-term follow up, WMD of PD, CAL, BOP, and PI was 0.45 mm (P = 0.11), 0.22 mm (P = 0.56), 7.26% (P = 0.76) and -0.09 (P = 0.84), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
Current evidence shows laser therapy in combination with surgical/non-surgical therapy provided minimal benefit in PD reduction, CAL gain, amount of REC improvement, and PI reduction in the treatment of peri-implant diseases. Lasers when used as an adjunct to non-surgical therapy might result in more BOP reduction in the short term. However, current evidence allowed for analysis of only Er:YAG, CO , and diode lasers. Studies on others failed to have controlled evidence supporting their evaluation.
Topics: Dental Implants; Humans; Laser Therapy; Low-Level Light Therapy; Mucositis; Peri-Implantitis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Stomatitis; United States
PubMed: 30133748
DOI: 10.1902/jop.2017.160483