Article

Access to the text (HTML) Access to the text (HTML)
PDF Access to the PDF text
Advertising


Access to the full text of this article requires a subscription.
  • If you are a subscriber, please sign in 'My Account' at the top right of the screen.

  • If you want to subscribe to this journal, see our rates



Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology
Volume 66, n° 4
pages 664-672 (avril 2012)
Doi : 10.1016/j.jaad.2011.07.011
accepted : 16 July 2011
Reviews

A review of targeted ultraviolet B phototherapy for psoriasis
 

Tejaswi Mudigonda, BS a, Tushar S. Dabade, MD a, , Steven R. Feldman, MD, PhD a, b, c
a Center for Dermatology Research, Department of Dermatology, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina 
b Center for Dermatology Research, Department of Pathology, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina 
c Center for Dermatology Research, Department of Public Health Sciences, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina 

Reprint requests: Tushar S. Dabade, MD, Department of Dermatology, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Medical Center Blvd, Winston-Salem, NC 27157-1071.
Abstract

Targeted ultraviolet (UV) B phototherapy devices provide a practical means to treat localized psoriasis while sparing harmful effects to unaffected skin. The objective of this study was to characterize the efficacy and safety of targeted phototherapy devices for psoriasis. We conducted a PubMed search for broadband UVB, narrowband UVB, and localized phototherapy, and a Google search for handheld phototherapy. The most common targeted phototherapy devices were characterized as 308-nm excimer laser, 308-nm excimer nonlaser, or nonexcimer light subtypes. Nine clinical trials met inclusion criteria and all found targeted phototherapy efficacious. In a nonexcimer light study, high doses cleared the most plaques. The 308-nm excimer laser had long-term clearance in 13 of 26 patients. The mean number of UVB treatments in all 9 studies and highest cumulative dose was less than those same parameters in nontargeted phototherapies. Common adverse effects included erythema, blisters, hyperpigmentation, erosion, mild burning, and itching. The predominant setting for excimer units is the office; however, the majority of nonexcimer light devices can also be used at home. Targeted phototherapy should be considered among the treatment options for localized variants of psoriasis.

The full text of this article is available in PDF format.

Key words : cost, efficacy, equipment, excimer, localized psoriasis, mechanism

Abbreviations used : MED, MEL, NBUVB, PASI, UV



 The Center for Dermatology Research is supported by an educational grant from Galderma Laboratories LP.
 Disclosure: Dr Feldman has received research, speaking, and/or consulting support from Galderma, Abbott Labs, Warner Chilcott, Aventis Pharmaceuticals, 3M, Connetics, Roche, Amgen, Biogen, GSK/Steifel, and Genentech. Mr Mudigonda and Dr Dabade have no conflicts of interest to declare.



© 2011  American Academy of Dermatology, Inc.@@#104156@@
EM-CONSULTE.COM is registrered at the CNIL, déclaration n° 1286925.
As per the Law relating to information storage and personal integrity, you have the right to oppose (art 26 of that law), access (art 34 of that law) and rectify (art 36 of that law) your personal data. You may thus request that your data, should it be inaccurate, incomplete, unclear, outdated, not be used or stored, be corrected, clarified, updated or deleted.
Personal information regarding our website's visitors, including their identity, is confidential.
The owners of this website hereby guarantee to respect the legal confidentiality conditions, applicable in France, and not to disclose this data to third parties.
Close
Article Outline
You can move this window by clicking on the headline