4.7 Article

Methyl Aminolaevulinic Acid versus Aminolaevulinic Acid Photodynamic Therapy of Actinic Keratosis with Low Doses of Red-Light LED Illumination: Results of Long-Term Follow-Up

期刊

BIOMEDICINES
卷 10, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines10123218

关键词

photodynamic therapy; red light; short illumination

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study compares the effectiveness of lower doses of red light conventional PDT (h-PDT) with methyl aminolaevulinic acid (MAL) and aminolaevulinic acid (ALA) in the treatment of multiple actinic keratosis (AK). The results show that there were no significant differences in the outcomes of both treatments at 12 months, although ALA exhibited slightly better results at 3 months. Neither pain nor adverse events showed any differences.
Photodynamic therapy (PDT) treatment for multiple actinic keratosis (AK) has been found effective when lower doses of red light were used with methyl aminolaevulinic acid (MAL). The aim of this study was to compare the results of lower doses of red light conventional PDT (h-PDT, 16 J/cm(2)) with MAL and aminolaevulinic acid (ALA) in a long-term follow-up. Patients with more than five symmetrical AK on the scalp who were candidates for PDT were selected and divided randomly between MAL and ALA treatment and patients were followed at 3 and 12 months. The responses were assessed by counting the total AK and the AK per patient. Pain and adverse events were also compiled. A total of 46 patients were treated, 24 with MAL, and 22 with ALA. The two groups were comparable at baseline (p > 0.005). No significant differences were found in the results of both treatments at 12 months, despite ALA exhibiting slightly better results at 3 months. No differences in pain and adverse events were assessed. Both ALA and MAL were effective when lower doses of red light were used in c-PDT. Long term efficacy was also documented. Further studies are necessary to determine the inferior point of red-light illumination without losing efficacy.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据