A multicenter clinical evaluation of the treatment of mild to moderate inflammatory acne vulgaris of the face with visible blue light in comparison to topical 1% clindamycin antibiotic solution

Journal of Drugs in Dermatology, Jan-Feb, 2005 by Michael H. Gold, Jaggi Rao, Mitchel P. Goldman, Tancy M. Bridges, Virginia L. Bradshaw, Molly M. Boring, April N. Guider

Conclusion

The results from this clinical research trial support the concept of the blue light source as a safe and effective therapy for the treatment of mild to moderate inflammatory acne vulgaris. Throughout the past several decades, many acne vulgaris clinical trials have used topical 1% clindamycin solution as the benchmark in comparing or evaluating new acne vulgaris treatments or treatment strategies. This current research project also utilized topical 1% clindamycin solution in the attempt to show efficacy data versus, and in comparison with, the blue light source described.

The blue light source described in this report, Blu-U, is an affordable blue light source that does have a positive effect in patients suffering from mild to moderate inflammatory acne vulgaris. The current clinical evaluation showed that both inflammatory and non-inflammatory acne vulgaris lesions will respond in a positive fashion to the twice-weekly blue light therapy for the recommended 4 weeks of therapy. The results from this clinical trial show that blue light therapy may be superior to topical 1% clindamycin solution especially for inflammatory acne vulgaris; this was demonstrated in the treatment phase of this research project and in the post-treatment phase as well. The resolution of 36% of active acne lesions for blue light therapy compared to 14% for the clindamycin group shows the effectiveness of the blue light source in the treatment of mild to moderate inflammatory acne vulgaris.

Patients tolerated the treatments well and there were no significant adverse effects noted during the course of this research project. Blue light therapy has a place in the treatment of acne vulgaris and should be considered in our treatment paradigm when confronted with our patients' suffering from acne vulgaris. Clinicians need to determine how to incorporate this new therapy into their everyday clinical practice of dermatology. Combination therapies with topical antibiotics and topical retinoids, along with the blue light source, may offer an ideal treatment program for many of our patients with mild to moderate inflammatory acne vulgaris.

This was a small clinical trial and more patients should be evaluated in the future to see if the percent changes demonstrated in this clinical trial hold up to further evaluations. Responders and non-responders were included in our evaluations, which lower the overall percentage as compared to other reports previously described with a blue light source. Various combination therapy clinical trials should be undertaken to determine the optimum way to utilize the blue light source. These would include increasing the treatment times for blue light therapy and increasing the number of blue light treatments, all in an attempt to demonstrate increased patient efficacy. Also, adding topical 20% 5-aminolevulinic acid is known to enhance light sources and should be studied in patients with mild to moderate acne vulgaris.

Our patients are interested in our new technologies and we have blue light sources, which are efficacious in treating inflammatory acne vulgaris. Young patients are surrounded by technology on a daily basis--blue light fits this bill. Older patients yearn for new therapies for acne vulgaris and by utilizing new technologies, such as the blue light sources for inflammatory acne vulgaris, they too will be excited to incorporate this into their acne treatment routine.