The efficacy of pulsed dye laser treatment for inflammatory skin diseases: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The position of the pulsed dye laser (PDL) in the treatment of inflammatory skin diseases is still unclear. Evidence-based recommendations are lacking. OBJECTIVES: We sought to systematically review all available literature concerning PDL treatment for inflammatory skin diseases and to propose a recommendation. METHODS: We searched for publications dated between January 1992 and August 2011 in the database PubMed. All studies reporting on PDL treatment for an inflammatory skin disease were obtained and a level of evidence was determined. RESULTS: Literature search revealed 52 articles that could be included in this study. The inflammatory skin diseases treated with PDL consisted of: psoriasis, acne vulgaris, lupus erythematodes, granuloma faciale, sarcoidosis, eczematous lesions, papulopustular rosacea, lichen sclerosis, granuloma annulare, Jessner lymphocytic infiltration of the skin, and reticular erythematous mucinosis. The efficacy of PDL laser treatment for these inflammatory skin diseases was described and evaluated. LIMITATIONS: Most conclusions formulated are not based on randomized controlled trials. CONCLUSIONS: PDL treatment can be recommended as an effective and safe treatment for localized plaque psoriasis and acne vulgaris (recommendation grade B). For all other described inflammatory skin diseases, PDL seems to be promising, although the level of recommendation did not exceed level C.

Efficacy and safety of pulsed dye laser treatment for cutaneous discoid lupus erythematosus.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of chronic discoid lupus erythematosus (CDLE) with a pulsed dye laser (PDL) has shown promising results, although outcomes in previous studies were not validated and laser parameters were inconsistent. OBJECTIVE: We conducted an open prospective study to assess the efficacy and safety of PDL for the treatment of recalcitrant CDLE, using a validated scoring method and a fixed treatment schedule. METHODS: Twelve patients with active CDLE lesions were treated with PDL (585 nm, fluence 5.5 J/cm(2), spot size 7 mm) 3 times with an interval of 6 weeks followed by a 6-week follow-up period. Treatment outcomes were evaluated by 3 observers using the validated Cutaneous Lupus Erythematosus Disease Area and Severity Index (CLASI). Cosmetic results and adverse events were recorded. RESULTS: A significant decline in "active" CLASI was observed after 6 weeks, after 12 weeks, and at follow-up. Baseline active CLASI was 4.4 +/- 0.2 (mean +/- SEM), reaching 1.3 +/- 0.3 after follow-up (P < .0001). Individual scores for erythema and scaling/hypertrophy significantly declined 6 weeks after treatment. The "damage" CLASI (dyspigmentation, scarring, and atrophy) did not show any significant change during or after therapy. The observed clinical improvement was confirmed by two independent observers by clinical assessment of photographs (r = 0.87 and r = 0.89; both P < .05). The treatment was well tolerated, only minimal pain was reported, and the cosmetic result was fair. LIMITATIONS: Small sample size and short follow-up duration were limitations. CONCLUSION: PDL treatment is an effective and safe therapy for patients with refractory CDLE.

Validation of clinical and image skin scoring systems for a single chronic discoid lupus erythematosus lesion.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to achieve a validated clinical and image scoring system for a single chronic discoid lupus erythematosus (CDLE) lesion. METHODS: Fifteen patients with a CDLE lesion were scored twice by four observers and clinical photographs were taken. These pictures were assessed by the same four observers at two time points. Patients were scored using the DLE-Skin Score (DLE-SS). In addition, the DLE-Photo Score (DLE-PS) was calculated. Statistical analysis was carried out by measuring inter- and intra-observer agreement for both methods and by measuring the correlation between the DLE-SS and DLE-PS. RESULTS: Both the DLE-SS and DLE-PS proved reliable methods in the assessment of CDLE. The inter-observer variability of the DLE-SS and DLE-SS was low. The intra-observer variability was estimated to be 0 in both methods. The correlation coefficient between the DLE-SS and DLE-PS was high (0.81). CONCLUSION: Both the DLE-SS and the DLE-PS are reliable and easy-to-use methods to score disease activity in CDLE patients, and can be used in monitoring single target lesions in clinical trials.