Lim, Henry W.

Importance Office-based phototherapy is cost-effective for psoriasis but difficult to access. Home-based phototherapy is patient preferred but has limited clinical data, particularly in patients with darker skin. Objective To compare the effectiveness of home- vs office-based narrowband UV-B phototherapy for psoriasis. Design, Setting, and Participants The Light Treatment Effectiveness study was an investigator-initiated, pragmatic, open-label, parallel-group, multicenter, noninferiority randomized clinical trial embedded in routine care at 42 academic and private clinical dermatology practices in the US. Enrollment occurred from March 1, 2019, to December 4, 2023, with follow-up through June 2024. Participants were 12 years and older with plaque or guttate psoriasis who were candidates for home- and office-based phototherapy. Interventions Participants were randomized to receive a home narrowband UV-B machine with guided mode dosimetry or routine care with office-based narrowband UV-B for 12 weeks, followed by an additional 12-week observation period. Main Outcomes and Measures The coprimary effectiveness outcomes were Physician Global Assessment (PGA) dichotomized as clear/almost clear skin (score of ≤1) at the end of the intervention period and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) score of 5 or lower (no to small effect on quality of life) at week 12. Results Of 783 patients enrolled (mean [SD] age, 48.0 [15.5] years; 376 [48.0%] male), 393 received home-based phototherapy and 390 received office-based phototherapy, with 350 (44.7%) having skin phototype (SPT) I/II, 350 (44.7%) having SPT III/IV, and 83 (10.6%) having SPT V/VI. A total of 93 patients (11.9%) were receiving systemic treatment. At baseline, mean (SD) PGA was 2.7 (0.8) and DLQI was 12.2 (7.2). At week 12, 129 patients (32.8%) receiving home-based phototherapy and 100 patients (25.6%) receiving office-based phototherapy achieved clear/almost clear skin, and 206 (52.4%) and 131 (33.6%) achieved DLQI of 5 or lower, respectively. Home-based phototherapy was noninferior to office-based phototherapy for PGA and DLQI in the overall population and across all SPTs. Home-based phototherapy, compared to office-based phototherapy, was associated with better treatment adherence (202 patients [51.4%] vs 62 patients [15.9%]; P < .001), lower burden of indirect costs to patients, and more episodes of persistent erythema (466 of 7957 treatments [5.9%] vs 46 of 3934 treatments [1.2%]; P < .001). Both treatments were well tolerated with no discontinuations due to adverse events. Conclusions and Relevance In this randomized clinical trial, home-based phototherapy was as effective as office-based phototherapy for plaque or guttate psoriasis in everyday clinical practice and had less burden to patients. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03726489

AbstractBackgroundActinic keratosis (AK) is a frequent health condition attributable to chronic exposure to ultraviolet radiation. Several treatment options are available and evidence based guidelines are missing.ObjectivesThe goal of these evidence‐ and consensus‐based guidelines was the development of treatment recommendations appropriate for different subgroups of patients presenting with AK. A secondary aim of these guidelines was the implementation of knowledge relating to the clinical background of AK, including consensus‐based recommendations for the histopathological definition, diagnosis and the assessment of patients.MethodsThe guidelines development followed a pre‐defined and structured process. For the underlying systematic literature review of interventions for AK, the methodology suggested by the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) statement and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was adapted. All recommendations were consented during a consensus conference using a formal consensus methodology. Strength of recommendations was expressed based on the GRADE approach. If expert opinion without external evidence was incorporated into the reasoning for making a certain recommendation, the rationale was provided. The Guidelines underwent open public review and approval by the commissioning societies.ResultsVarious interventions for the treatment of AK have been assessed for their efficacy. The consenting procedure led to a treatment algorithm as shown in the guidelines document. Based on expert consensus, the present guidelines present recommendations on the classification of patients, diagnosis and histopathological definition of AK. Details on the methods and results of the systematic literature review and guideline development process have been published separately.ConclusionsInternational guidelines are intended to be adapted to national or regional circumstances (regulatory approval, availability and reimbursement of treatments).

Summary Background/Purpose Ultraviolet A1 ( UVA 1) phototherapy has been used for over 15 years in the United States, primarily for the treatment of localized sclerosis and various sclerosing disorders. The objective was to describe use of UVA 1 for dermatoses beyond localized sclerosis at two academic institutions. Methods Data from 83 patients treated with low‐ (20–40 J/cm 2 ), medium‐ (>40–80 J/cm 2 ), and high‐ (>80–120 J/cm 2 ) dose UVA 1 phototherapy was retrospectively analyzed. The mean individual treatment dose (J/cm 2 ), the mean number of sessions, and the mean total dose (J/cm 2 ) were evaluated. Effectiveness was assessed by reviewing clinical examination notes from office visits. Results Good therapeutic efficacy was seen in patients with systemic sclerosis ( SS , 16 patients), graft‐versus‐host disease ( GVHD , 25 patients), and nephrogenic systemic fibrosis ( NSF , 17 patients). A statistically significant a dose–response association was observed in the cases of SS , GVHD and NSF . Likelihood of clinical improvement from UVA 1 phototherapy was very likely for medium‐ and high‐dose regimens in SS , while this level of improvement was only observed in GVHD and NSF patients receiving high‐dose UVA 1. Conclusion UVA 1 phototherapy is effective and safe in the treatment of GVHD , NSF , SS , and mast cell disorders. High‐dose regimens appear to be more effective than medium‐ and low‐dose regimens for NSF and GVHD , while medium‐ and high‐dose regimens outperform low‐dose UVA 1 in SS .