Methyl aminolevulinate daylight photodynamic therapy applied at home for non‐hyperkeratotic actinic keratosis of the face or scalp: an open, interventional study conducted in Germany

Background The efficacy and safety of methyl aminolevulinate daylight photodynamic therapy (MAL DL‐PDT) for actinic keratosis (AK) treatment has previously been demonstrated in several studies. Objective To evaluate patient‐reported outcomes, effectiveness and tolerability of patient self‐applied MA...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology 2019-04, Vol.33 (4), p.661-666
Main Authors: Karrer, S., Aschoff, R.A.G., Dominicus, R., Krähn‐Senftleben, G., Gauglitz, G.G., Zarzour, A., Kerrouche, N., Chavda, R., Szeimies, R.‐M.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Aminolevulinic Acid - adverse effects
Aminolevulinic Acid - analogs & derivatives
Aminolevulinic Acid - therapeutic use
Facial Dermatoses - drug therapy
Female
Germany
Humans
Keratosis, Actinic - drug therapy
Male
Patient Reported Outcome Measures
Patient Satisfaction
Photochemotherapy - adverse effects
Photochemotherapy - methods
Photosensitizing Agents - adverse effects
Photosensitizing Agents - therapeutic use
Scalp Dermatoses - drug therapy
Self Care
Sunlight
Surveys and Questionnaires
Treatment Outcome
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Background The efficacy and safety of methyl aminolevulinate daylight photodynamic therapy (MAL DL‐PDT) for actinic keratosis (AK) treatment has previously been demonstrated in several studies. Objective To evaluate patient‐reported outcomes, effectiveness and tolerability of patient self‐applied MAL DL‐PDT. Patients and methods An open study was conducted in Germany in patients with thin or non‐hyperkeratotic and non‐pigmented AK. At baseline, the investigator delimited the target anatomical area and skin preparation was discretionary. On day 1, the patient performed MAL DL‐PDT at home, in accordance with instructions (after applying sunscreen and skin preparation by abrasive pad). Patient questionnaires were completed on day 1 and 3 months post‐treatment. Effectiveness was assessed by investigator at 3 months. Pain and adverse events (AE) were recorded. Results Patients (n = 50) were mostly elderly (mean age: 73.4 years) men (86%). After treatment on day 1, 94% of patients were overall satisfied or very satisfied with the treatment and 98% found the instructions convenient. At 3 months, most patients were satisfied or very satisfied with treatment effectiveness (88%) and aspect of their skin (80%). At 3 months, 62% of overall lesions were completely clear. The main related AEs were mild and expected (erythema, procedural pain and skin burning sensation). Conclusions Patient self‐application of MAL DL‐PDT resulted in high levels of patient satisfaction, effectiveness and tolerability. Linked article: This article is commented on E. Ramelyte et al., p. 629 in this issue. To view this article visit https://doi.org/10.1111/jdv.15535.
ISSN:0926-9959
1468-3083
DOI:10.1111/jdv.15422