Home- vs clinic-based daylight photodynamic therapy with 5-aminolevulinic acid nanoemulsion (BF-200 ALA) for actinic keratosis: A randomized, single-blind, prospective study
Metadatos
Mostrar el registro completo del ítemAutor
Saenz Guirado, Soledad; Ayen Rodriguez, Angela; Galvez Moreno, María Ángeles; Velasco Amador, Juan Pablo; Llamas Molina, José María; Ruiz-Villaverde, R.; Molina Leyva, AlejandroEditorial
Elsevier
Materia
Daylight photodynamic therapy (DL-PDT) BF-200 ALA Home-based treatment
Fecha
2024-03-02Referencia bibliográfica
S. Saenz-Guirado et al. Photodiagnosis and Photodynamic Therapy 46 (2024) 104031. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pdpdt.2024.104031]
Resumen
Background: Daylight photodynamic therapy (DL-PDT) has become one of the most effective treatments for the
resolution of actinic keratosis (AK) of Olsen grade 1 and 2. Generally, PDT it is carried out in a clinic setting,
which involves the patient’s and their caregivers commuting to the hospital as well as a significant use of resources
to carry it out within the clinic setting.
Objectives: To determine the efficacy and safety of a home-based treatment of AK with DL-PDT with the BF-200
ALA gel compared to a clinic-based setting.
Methods: The study was performed as a randomized, single-center, non-inferiority clinical trial with two parallel
groups. 9 patients received one clinic-based DL-PDT (group 1) and 11 patients received one session of homebased
DL-PDT (group 2). The primary endpoints were the mean AK clearance per patient and the total AK
lesion clearance rate 12 weeks after treatment. The secondary endpoints were the number of remaining AKs and
new AKs appearing in the treatment field 12 weeks after one PDT session. The pain during and 24 h after PDT as
well as the local skin reactions were also assessed.
Results: The overall reduction of AK lesions per patient was similar in both groups with one PDT session. An
overall AK clearance per patient of 10 ± 4.33 for group 1 versus 9.73 ± 2.9 for group 2 without statistically
significant differences (p = 0.868). Regarding the clearance rate, although it was slightly higher in group 2
(71.58 ± 22.51 vs 82.1 ± 11.13), the analysis did not show statistically significant differences. The mild pain
recorded during the treatment course and the mild local skin reactions were similar in both groups. Patient
satisfaction was high for both groups without statistically significant differences.
Conclusion: Self-performed home-based DL-PDT with BF-200 ALA gel is as effective as the one performed in a
clinic-based setting, with a comparable safety profile, high levels of patient satisfaction and with advantages for
the patients and their caregivers that can enhance patient´s adherence to the treatment.