Original Contribution

Blackwell Publishing
O R I GInc
INAL CONTRIBUTION

An assessment of the efficacy of blue light phototherapy in the

treatment of acne vulgaris
Sadia Ammad, MBBS, DDSc, MSc,1 Maria Gonzales, MSc,1 Chris Edwards, PhD,2 Andrew Y Finlay,
MBBS,1 & Caroline Mills, MRCP2
1
Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
2
Royal Gwent Hospital, Newport, UK

Summary Background Acne vulgaris is a common skin condition that affects 8 out of 10 people. It
varies from mild to severe, and different treatments target various aspects of the disease.
Propionibacterium acnes, one of the culprits involved in the pathogenesis of acne vulgaris,
is the main target of all major medical treatments used. Studies conducted in recent years
have shown favorable effects within the visible light spectrum for the treatment of acne
vulgaris.
Objective In this study, we have evaluated the use of intense blue light within the spectral
range of 415 –425 nm (peak 420 nm) in the treatment of acne vulgaris.
Methods Twenty-one patients with mild to moderate facial acne were treated with blue
light phototherapy. All patients were given 14-min treatment sessions twice a week for 4
weeks. Acne severity was assessed using the Leeds Technique for grading and lesion
counts. Disability was assessed using the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI). In
addition, standard digital and cross-polarized light photographs were taken and graded
by a blinded evaluator. Visual analog scale (VAS) scores and cultures for P. acnes were
carried out before starting the treatment and upon completion of the treatment.
Results Significant improvement was achieved in the Leeds Acne Grade (P = 0.001). The
inflammatory (P = 0.001) and noninflammatory (P = 0.06) lesion counts also improved
significantly. A similar change was noted in the DLQI (P = 0.001); a degree of significance
was also achieved in the patients’ and the investigators’ VAS scores (P = 0.01 and
P = 0.001, respectively). P. acnes colony counts failed to show a significant decrease at
the end of the treatment and remained almost constant (P = 0.660).
Conclusions We believe that blue light does appear to have some role in the management of
acne and may be beneficial for the treatment of a select group of mild to moderate acne patients.
Keywords: acne, blue light, Propionibacterium acnes

Correspondence: Dr. Sadia Ammad, Adama Clinics, Tehliya Street, PO Box
112744, Jeddah 21371, Saudi Arabia. E-mail: s_ammad@yahoo.com
The abstract of this paper has been presented at the 26th Pakistan
Association of Dermatologists (PAD) and 5th South Asian Regional
Association of Dermatologists (SARAD) Conference of Dermatology, in
Lahore, Pakistan; has been presented at the International Academy of
Cosmetic Dermatologists (IACD) 2005 Congress in Paris; and has been
published in the British Journal of Dermatology 2002; 147 (Suppl. 62): 95.
Accepted for publication May 10, 2008
Introduction
The skin and the pilosebaceous units are predominantly
colonized by Propionibacterium acnes, a bacterium that
plays a major role in the development of inflammation in
acne. The most significant evidence of this lies in the
reduction of inflammatory lesions and P. acnes counts
following antibiotic treatment. Penicillin, which does not
suppress P. acnes, is found to be clinically ineffective in the
treatment of acne.1

180 © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. • Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology, 7, 180–188

 Blue light phototherapy in the treatment of acne vulagris • S Ammad et al.
Many studies have been conducted with lasers and light
sources alone and in combination with topical photo-
sensitizers to treat acne. The combination of blue and red light
seems to be superior to blue light alone. Goldberg et al. used
a combination of blue and red light emitting diode (LED)
phototherapy in the treatment of mild to severe acne and
found this combination to have an excellent potential.2
Gold et al. carried out a multicenter evaluation to
compare the effects of blue light vs. topical clindamycin in
the treatment of mild to moderate inflammatory acne.3
They reported an average reduction of 42% with blue
light as compared with 14% with clindamycin. Another
study by Gold et al. reported that 5-aminolevulinic acid
photodynamic therapy with intense pulsed light activation
reduced active inflammatory lesions by 50.1% by the end
of 4 weeks of treatment and 71.8% after 12 weeks of the
last treatment.4
Alternative treatments for treating acne, such as lasers
and light therapy, are gaining importance because of the
emergence of antibiotic-resistant P. acnes, the side effects
of antibiotics, and because some patients are intolerant or
resistant to oral retinoids. All the above-mentioned studies
provide attractive alternative treatment options for the
clinician to choose from when treating acne patients.
High-intensity, narrow-band, blue light phototherapy
is a promising new treatment for acne. It is believed that
blue light, by killing or altering the function of P. acnes,
decreases the severity of acne, especially inflammatory
acne. A study conducted by Shnitkind et al. showed that
blue light has anti-inflammatory effects on keratinocytes
by decreasing the cytokine-induced production of inter-
leukin-1 alpha and intercellular adhesion molecule-1.5
Side effects to date have been mild and include temporary
pigment changes, swelling of treated areas, and dryness.
Blue light
Propionibacterium acnes is known to produce endogenous
porphyrins, the major component of which is thought to
be coproporphyrin III.6 Phototherapy of acne is based on
the fact that P. acnes produces porphyrins, and exposure
of these compounds to light in the blue region (415 nm)
results in photodynamic stimulation of these porphyrins,
singlet oxygen production, and bacterial killing.7 This
reaction is confined to the bacteria and, thus, has no
direct effect on the surrounding tissue.
Omi et al. have done an impressive study.8 They carried
out cultures and polymerase chain reaction for the detec-
tion of bacteria in the pustules. Ultrastructural changes
were also examined in eight patients after four sessions of
light therapy. They reported that ClearLight™ has effects
close to the concomitant use of blue and red light. The use
© 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. • Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology, 7, 180– 188
of a swab method and polymerase chain reaction for
bacteriological examination did not detect changes in
any of their cases; however, the ultrastructural investiga-
tion found clusters of impaired bacteria, which they
attributed to the effect of blue light on P. acnes.
Stillman et al. treated patients with a high-intensity
fiber-optic lamp emitting visible light in the violet–blue
range for a period of 4 weeks.9 Twice weekly treatments
were given for a total of 20 min. Cultures for P. acnes were
also carried out. Patients with higher levels of surface
P. acnes not only demonstrated a reduction in the levels
of P. acnes but also showed a significant improvement
and reduction in the number of inflammatory and non-
inflammatory lesions.
Some experts believe that blue light as a monotherapy
maybe sufficient to treat acne, whereas others believe
that red–blue light radiation may be superior to blue light
alone. Photodynamic therapy has also been used and
with excellent therapeutic results.10,11 The present study
will provide a valid comparison with other studies published
on the same subject with regard to critical analysis of
this treatment modality and will prove to be a valuable
addition to the reference source.
Methods and materials
Aim of the study
This study aims to assess the efficacy of BlueLight
phototherapy for the treatment of acne vulgaris.
Design of the study
This was a prospective study involving 21 patients with
mild to moderate facial acne. Male and female patients
of different skin types and above 16 years of age were
enrolled in this study. All patients were examined at the
Department of Dermatology, Heath Hospital, Cardiff, UK.
Patients with severe nodulocystic acne or who have taken
oral isotretinoin in the previous 6 months were excluded.
Similarly, patients on systemic antibiotics in the previous
6 weeks or on topical medication 2 weeks prior to
assessment were also excluded. Pregnant and lactating
women were also not included in the study. All participants
were required to give their written informed consent prior
to the commencement of the study. Ethical approval was
obtained from Bro Taf Local Research Ethics Committee
before the commencement of the study.
Each patient was exposed to blue light for 14 min twice
a week for 4 weeks, for a maximum of eight treatments.
Assessments were carried out before and upon completion
of the treatment.
181
Blue light phototherapy in the treatment of acne vulagris • S Ammad et al.

Figure 1 ClearLight spectrum.

Subject evaluations
Clinical assessments with the Leeds Acne Grading Scale
and the Leeds Counting technique were performed at
baseline (week 0) and after the 8th treatment (week 4).
Burke and Cunliffe devised two methods of acne assessment,
which were entirely subjective, based on inspection and
palpation of the skin and practice.12 The first method
gives an overall assessment of the acne severity in a
particular area, which is suitable for use in acne routine Figure 2 Mean grade of acne grading.
clinics. The second uses a counting system, which is
useful for detailed work in therapeutic trials. We made
use of the latter in our study. Dermatology Life Quality the assessments were carried out using the Spearman
Index (DLQI) forms were also given to the patients to be rank correlation.
completed before and after completion of the study. Other
clinical scoring techniques utilized were the visual
Results
analog scale (VAS); both patients’ and doctors’ scores
were recorded. Standard digital photographs and cross- Twenty-one patients with mild to moderate facial acne
polarized photographs were taken before and after the completed the treatment. The mean age of the female
completion of the treatment. Photographs were coded subjects was 22.6 years, with an age range of 17–30 years,
and assessed by a blinded observer using the same Leeds while the mean age of male subjects was 20.1 years, with
Acne Grading Scale, which was used in the clinical an age range of 16–28 years. The skin type of the patients
assessments. The Williamson and Kligman technique was also taken into consideration: 24% patients had skin
was used to take the scrub samples for the culture of type I, 19% had skin type II, 47% fell into the category of
P. acnes.13 Sampling was done at baseline (week 0) and skin type III, and 10% had skin type V.
after the 8th treatment (week 4).
Acne grading
Blue light phototherapy
The equipment used for this study was a high-intensity, The mean score of acne grading using the Leeds technique
400-W, ultraviolet-free, blue metal halide lamp, having a at week 0 was 1.64 ± 1.19, and at week 4 it was 1.35 ±
spectral range of 415 –425 nm (Fig. 1), which produced 1.28 (Fig. 2). This difference was found to be statistically
70–90 W/cm2 of homogenous illumination over an area significant (P = 0.001). The acne grade decreased by
of 20 × 20 cm2 (ClearLightTM, Lumenis, Yokneam, Israel). 11.2% between weeks 0 and 4.

Statistical methods Lesion count analysis

Statistical analysis was carried out using paired T-tests. At week 0, the mean count for inflammatory lesions was
Comparisons of scores of the different variables used for 46.71 ± 26.97, falling to 35.33 ± 28.63 at week 4.

182 © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. • Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology, 7, 180–188

 Blue light phototherapy in the treatment of acne vulagris • S Ammad et al.

Figure 3 Mean lesion counts.

Figure 6 (a) Patient 1 at the start of the treatment. (b) Patient at the
end of eight treatment session.

Figure 4 Inflammatory lesion counts versus acne grading.

Figure 5 Inflammatory lesion counts versus doctors’ visual analog

scale (VAS).
Similarly, the counts for noninflamed lesions decreased
from 23.86 ± 23.42 at baseline to 19.43 ± 24.15 after
4 weeks of treatment. A statistically significant difference
was seen in the inflammatory lesion counts (P = 0.001),
whereas the difference seen in the noninflammatory
lesions failed to reach a similar statistical significance
(P = 0.06). The average decrease in the inflamed lesions
at week 4 was 13.87% compared with 10.23% for
noninflammatory lesions (Fig. 3).
A strong positive correlation was seen between
inflammatory lesion counts and acne grading (r = 0.69,
P = 0.015) (Fig. 4). The noninflammatory lesions did not
correlate to a similar degree (r = 0.38, P = 0.762).
Similarly, a strong correlation was noted between
inflammatory lesion counts and the VAS scoring carried
out by the investigator (r = 0.63, P = 0.001) (Fig. 5).
However, the noninflammatory lesions showed a positive
but weak correlation with the investigators’ VAS scoring
Figure 7 (a) Patient 2 before treatment with blue light. (b) Same
patient at the end of eight treatment sessions.
(r = 0.14, P = 0.174). For clinical examples, please refer
to Figures 6 and 7.
Cross-polarized photographs
The mean score of the grade given to the cross-polarized
photographs at week 0 by the blinded evaluator was
1.309 ± 1.51 compared with 1.12 ± 1.21 at week 4. This
difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.153).
The change in grade from weeks 0 to 4 was noted to be
7.9%.
Dermatology Life Quality Index
The mean DLQI at baseline was 6.1 ± 4.17 compared
with 4 ± 3.24 after 4 weeks of treatments. This difference

© 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. • Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology, 7, 180– 188 183
Blue light phototherapy in the treatment of acne vulagris • S Ammad et al.
Figure 8 Mean grade of Dermatology Life Quality Index.
Figure 9 Mean visual analog scale (VAS) score.
was found to be statistically significant (P = 0.001). This
represents an 18.8% decrease in the average DLQI score
between weeks 0 and 4 (Fig. 8).
VAS analysis
The mean VAS investigators’ score was 40.65 ± 0.24
at baseline and 32.86 ± 0.24 after the last treatment.
This difference was found to be statistically significant
(P = 0.001). The mean VAS score for the patient was
55.79 ± 0.23 at baseline and 44.91 ± 0.23 at week 4;
this difference reached statistical significance (P = 0.01).
The average decline in the VAS for the patient was 10.8%,
and for the investigator, it was 10.6% (Fig. 9). A weak
positive correlation was found between the patients’ and
investigators’ VAS scores (r = 0.37, P = 0.035).
Propionibacterium acnes cultures
The mean value for the P. acnes cultures was 4.94 ± 1.29
at week 0 compared with 4.8 ± 1.39 at week 4. This
difference was not shown to be of any statistical
significance (P = 0.66). The mean decrease in the P. acnes
colonies (log10 CFU/cm2) at week 4 was 1.43%. The
inflammatory and noninflammatory lesion counts did
not show any correlation with P. acnes colony counts
(r = 0.05, P = 0.969; r = – 0.09, P = 0.333, respectively).
184
Discussion
High-intensity, narrow-band blue light phototherapy has
been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration
for treating acne. It is being used to treat inflammatory
acne, which has not responded to other acne therapies.
Generally, eight sessions are given over a period of 4 weeks,
and each session lasts approximately about 15 min.
Side effects reported to date have been mild and include
temporary pigmentary changes, dryness, and rarely some
swelling of treated areas. Many patients but not all
respond very well to blue light therapy.
Tzung et al. treated 31 patients with blue light, given
twice a week for 4 weeks.14 They concluded that papulo-
pustular lesions responded much better than comedones
and nodulocystic acne. Morten et al. reported similar
results, with a blue LED light source in patients with mild
to moderate acne.15 The Tremblay study also used a narrow-
band LED blue light in 45 patients with mild to moderate
acne. 16 The patients were given 20-min treatment
sessions twice weekly for 4–8 weeks. Fifty percent of the
patients experienced significant results.
A recent study done in Japan evaluated the new blue
light system (Multi Clear) for targeted blue light therapy.
The treatment device was placed directly only on the
affected area. Significant improvement was seen in 8 out
of the 10 patients enrolled in this study.17
The Elman study, using the same equipment as ours
(ClearLight), report a 59–67% reduction in inflammatory
acne lesions after eight sessions of 8- to 15-min duration.18
In addition, the reduction was seen to persist in 8 weeks
after the end of treatment. The patients in their study
suffered mainly from papulopustular acne. Kawada et al.
reported 64% improvement in patients with mild to
moderate acne treated with blue light.19 However, they
observed that not all patients experienced improvement
and 20% remained unchanged or worsened. A similar picture
was seen in the Tzung et al. study where they reported
deterioration of the nodulocystic lesions despite treatment.14
Shalita et al., in a study involving 35 patients with mild
to moderate acne, reported a mean decrease of 68% in
inflammatory and noninflammatory lesion counts when
treated with the ClearLight acne photoclearing system.20
The patients were given 10-min sessions on eight visits.
In the same study, they also report the results of 10 addi-
tional patients treated with blue light who were given
20 min of treatment, on six visits, instead of eight. Cultures
of P. acnes were carried out from the treated and untreated
sides of the face. A significant decrease in P. acnes counts
was noted in 6 out of the 10 patients (P = 0.05).
Harth et al. reported a mean decrease of 67% in inflam-
matory lesions.21 The equipment used in their study had
© 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. • Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology, 7, 180–188
 Blue light phototherapy in the treatment of acne vulagris • S Ammad et al.
restrictions and the same spectral range for blue light as
the one used in our study. Eight biweekly, 12-min treat-
ment sessions were given to each patient. The numbers of
patients in their study were 40, better than in most studies.
Sigurdsson et al. treated 30 patients with mild to
moderate acne with phototherapy.22 Three treatment
sessions were given every week for 7 weeks. These patients
were divided into three groups and exposed to three
different light sources. Lamps emitting full-spectrum
light (visible light and ultraviolet A), green light, and violet
light were used. Twenty-three patients completed the
study. Thirty percent overall reduction of acne lesions
was reported with violet light (P < 0.02). The reduction
in acne lesions treated with green light was 22%
(P < 0.05). The improvement in pustules and infiltrates
was more significant than in comedones.
We noticed a similar improvement pattern in our
patients; the decrease in inflammatory lesions was more
significant than in comedones. One of the patients in our
study had a very high count of noninflammatory lesions,
and the majority of these were open comedones. There
was no improvement seen in the lesion counts and the
numbers of comedones remained almost constant by
the end of the treatment. This correlates well with the
research findings of Lavker et al., who demonstrated that
the number of P. acnes exceeds that of aerobes in the open
and closed comedones.23 However, P. acnes are more
numerous in closed comedones than in open comedones,
reflecting that higher oxygen tension in open comedones
is detrimental to the survival of P. acnes. This may explain
why we did not witness any decrease in the number of
open comedones in this patient.
Papageorgiou et al. conducted a more in-depth study.24
One hundred and seven patients were recruited and
divided into four groups. Each group received a different
treatment; these were blue light, a combination of blue
and red light, and the two control groups were treated
with cool white light and benzoyl peroxide. Fifteen minutes
of daily treatments were given for 12 weeks with portable
light sources. Assessments were carried out at 4, 8, and
12 weeks and blinded by two assessors. They reported a
greater improvement in acne lesions with the combined
blue and red light than blue light alone. The light sources
used in their study used a wavelength with some degree
of ultraviolet light contamination, and they agree that
the greater degree of improvement seen could be attributed
to this additional wavelength.
In our study, DLQI provided a subjective assessment
of acne severity, which was used to substantiate other
clinical assessments also used in our study.25 We found a
significant correlation between doctors’ and patients’
VAS scores. There was also a positive correlation between
© 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. • Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology, 7, 180– 188
patients’ DLQI and patients’ VAS scores. This appears to
be an interesting finding because DLQI gives the patients’
perspective of how acne affects their daily life, whereas in
VAS, the patients are asked how bad they think their acne
is. Both tools are a means of subjectively quantifying the
disease severity. The fact that the improvement as assessed
by each technique correlates highly with each other adds
supportive evidence for the credible use of such techniques
in clinical settings despite their relative lack of objectivity.
The Williamson and Kligman technique was used in
our study to take scrub samples for the culture of P. acnes.13
Samples were taken from a standard site, the left lower
cheek, irrespective of whether acne lesions were present
at the site. The authors accept that the scrubbing technique
does not provide a true count of the organisms within the
follicles. The quantity can only be accurately assessed
when the contents are extruded in one piece as in follicular
filaments or comedones. This then provides the informa-
tion about the density of P. acnes per follicle, which is
important, rather than the count per square centimeter.
Due to the time, unavailability of essential resources
and personnel to carry out more sensitive bacteriologic
techniques, we were able to employ the Williamson
and Kligman technique only for the culture of P. acnes.13
Digital fluorescence photography and image analysis
is an alternative to bacteriologic cultures, which can
demonstrate the suppression of P. acnes.
In our study, patients with moderate acne, especially
with the Leeds acne grade of 3.5, did not show much
improvement. These patients had more inflamed lesions
and nodules than other subjects. Shalita et al. also
reported treatment failures in their study, which they
attributed to the presence of deep cysts and non–P. acnes
bacteria.20 This treatment failure with blue light that
targets P. acnes could be explained by the work done by
Leydon et al. in 1975.26 They demonstrated that P. acnes
levels tend to be lower in more inflamed lesions, and this
was also reflected in the lower levels of free fatty acids
present. They hypothesized that P. acnes being a micro-
aerophilic organism may be antagonized by the higher
tension of oxygen or some other aspect of the inflamed
skin such as temperature or pH changes.
Involvement of non–P. acnes bacteria in the failure of
treatment can also be taken into consideration as studies
in the past have suggested that Propionibacterium granulosum
may be more prevalent in individuals with severer forms
of acne. P. granulosum shows a high in vitro activity and
appears to be more antigenic and proteolytic than P. acnes.
Frequently, however, it cannot be isolated from severe
acne cases, a fact that demonstrates the difficulty of
extrapolating relevant information from in vitro studies,
which may be applied to in vivo work.27
185
Blue light phototherapy in the treatment of acne vulagris • S Ammad et al.

Figure 10 Proposed mechanism of action of ClearLight Acne Photoclearing system.

186 © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. • Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology, 7, 180–188

 Blue light phototherapy in the treatment of acne vulagris • S Ammad et al.
Based on the existing data on P. acnes colonization of
the inflammatory and noninflammatory lesions, response
to phototherapy is clearly paradoxical. The findings
demonstrate that inflammatory lesions show the greatest
improvement, while evidence exists for reduced coloniza-
tion in these lesion types by P. acnes in comparison
with the highly colonized noninflammatory lesions. This
response raises the possibility that blue light may in fact
be improving acne lesions by as yet unknown mechanisms
in addition to the accepted mechanism of action by
endogenous porphyrin sensitization.
The fact remains that acne patients improved following
treatment with blue light, justifying its use as a therapeutic
option. To further support the mechanism of action
through destruction of P. acnes, we can take into con-
sideration the role of endogenous porphyrins produced
by this bacterium. The role of porphyrins in the evolution
of comedones or the initiation of inflammation is uncertain.
It is proposed that porphyrins accelerate squalene
oxidation. Squalene is a highly active oxygen-trapping
compound, which could lower the oxygen tension within
the sebaceous follicle, thus favoring the colonization of
P. acnes.27 Therefore, we can assume that blue light being
preferentially absorbed by the endogenous porphyrins
seems to negatively impact on the microenvironment of
P. acnes by affecting the oxidation of squalene.
Futsaether et al. have added another angle to the
burgeoning hypotheses of how blue light may be affecting
P. acnes.28 They reported a decrease in the intracellular
pH in P. acnes after exposure to blue light, which proved to
be lethal. They postulated that this might be attributed to
an increase in the proton influx causing lethal changes in
these bacteria.
It has been hypothesized that violet/blue light may be
working by an antibacterial and anti-inflammatory
action.29 The equipment used in our study had a wave-
length spectrum emitting blue light and in addition also
emitted light in the range of 540–650 nm, which roughly
falls within wavelength range of red light. Considering all
the different hypotheses on the mechanism of action of
blue light, we have created a flow diagram proposing a
possible integrated mechanism of action for the ClearLight
system (Fig. 10). We are inclined to agree with the hypoth-
esis that blue light may have an anti-inflammatory effect
because we were able to appreciate the decrease in the
degree of inflammation, as witnessed in the improvement
of erythema surrounding the lesions.
Weber et al. in their work involving PDT reported an
apoptotic response with endogenously formed protopor-
phyrin.30 We believe that irradiation with blue light
might be affecting P. acnes in a similar manner involving
apoptotic responses rather then necrosis, as it does not
© 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. • Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology, 7, 180– 188
involve inflammation or release of cell contents, which are
known to be highly inflammatory. In PDT, the combination
of red light and aminolevulinic acid not only affects
P. acnes by an apoptotic process, but also is responsible
for causing destruction of sebocytes, vascular damage,
inflammation, and triggering host immune responses.31
Thus, there are a variety of reasons responsible for the
erythema, burning sensation of the skin, and skin peeling
seen with PDT, which are not demonstrated with red light
alone.
We recognize that we are unable to comment on the
long-term success of this treatment, as we were unable to
follow up our patients after 8 weeks of completion of the
treatment, due to time constraints, and the fact that
some patients opted for alternative treatments. However,
evidence exists now from numerous studies with blue
light, verifying acne resolution and continued therapeutic
improvement after the cessation of the therapy. This
information is clearly important to assess the viability of
blue light, as rapid relapses would instigate the development
of longer periods of treatment protocols, which include
maintenance therapy at well-calculated intervals.
Conclusion
In conclusion, our findings support the role of blue light
phototherapy in the treatment of mild to moderate acne.
Information obtained from this study can help to create
new treatment protocols in order to optimize the response
in acne patients treated with this system. Treatment
options involving blue light and another topical or
systemic agent may prove to be helpful by targeting
different factors involved in the pathogenesis of acne.
A combination therapy achieving a synergistic or an
augmented effect would mean a shorter duration of
treatment and may be the hope of the future to circumvent
the growing problem of treatment failures due to P. acnes
resistance.
References
1 Ad Hoc Committee Report: Systemic antibiotics for the
treatment of acne vulgaris: efficacy and safety. Arch
Dermatol 1975; 111: 1630–6.
2 Goldberg DJ, Russell BA. Combination blue light (415 nm)
and red (633 nm) LED phototherapy in the treatment of
mild to severe acne vulgaris. J Cosmet Laser Ther 2006; 8:
71–5.
3 Gold MH, Rao J, Goldman MP et al. 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. J Drugs Dermatol 2005; 4: 64–70.
187
Blue light phototherapy in the treatment of acne vulagris • S Ammad et al.
4 Gold MH, Bradshaw VL, Boring MM, Bridges TM, Biron JA,
Carter LN. The use of a novel intense pulsed light and heat
source and ALA-PDT in the treatment of moderate to severe
inflammatory acne vulgaris. J Drugs Dermatol 2004; 3
(6 Suppl.): S15–9.
5 Shnitkind E, Yaping E, Geen S, Shalita AR, Lee WL.
Anti-inflammatory properties of narrow-band blue light.
J Drugs Dermatol 2006; 5(7): 605–10.
6 Wei Li SL, Shalita AR, Poh-Fitzpatrick MB. Comparative
studies of porphyrin production in Propionibacterium acnes
and Propionibacterium granulosum. J Bacteriol 1978; 133:
811–5.
7 Arkane K, Ryu A, Hyashi C et al. Singlet oxygen (1 delta g)
generation from the coproporphyrin in Propionibacterium
acnes on irradiation. Biochem Biophy Res Commun 1996;
223: 578–82.
8 Omi T, Bjerring P, Sato S, Kawana S, Hankins RW,
Honda M. 420 nm intense continuous light therapy for
acne. J Cosmet Laser Ther 2004; 6: 156–62.
9 Stillman S, Geen S, Harth Y, Shalita AR. High intensity
narrow band blue light is effective in the treatment of acne
vulgaris – an in vitro and in vivo study. J Europ Acad Dermatol
Venereol (9th Congress, EADV, Geneva) 2000; 14(Suppl. 1):
47 [FC1–03].
10 Taub AF. A comparison of intense pulsed light,
combination radiofrequency and intense pulsed light,
and blue light in photodynamic therapy for acne vulgaris.
J Drugs Dermatol 2007; 6: 1010–6.
11 Alexiades-Armenakas M. Long-pulsed dye laser-mediated
photodynamic therapy combined with topical therapy for
mild to severe comedonal, inflammatory, or cystic acne.
J Drugs Dermatol 2006; 5: 45–55.
12 Burke BM, Cunliffe WJ. The assessment of acne vulgaris –
the Leeds Technique. Br J Dermatol 1984; 111: 83–92.
13 William P, Kligman AM. A new method for the quantitative
investigation of cutaneous bacteria. J Invest Dermatol 1965;
45: 498–503.
14 Tzung TY, Wu KH, Huang ML. Blue light phototherapy in
the treatment of acne. Photodermatol Photoimmunol
Photomed 2004; 20: 266–9.
15 Morten CA, Scholefield RD, Whitehurst C, Birch J. An open
study to determine the efficacy of blue light in the treatment
of mild to moderate acne. J Dermatolog Treat 2005; 16:
219–23.
16 Trembley JF, Sire DJ, Lowe NJ, Moy RL. Light-emitting
diode 415 nm in the treatment of inflammatory acne: an
open-label, multicentric, pilot investigation. J Cosmet Laser
Ther 2006; 8: 31–3.
188
17 Noborio R, Nishada E, Kurokawa M, Morita A. A new
targeted blue light therapy for the phototreatment of
acne. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed 2007; 23:
32–4.
18 Elman M, Slatkine M, Harth Y. The effective treatment of
acne vulgaris by a high-intensity, narrow-band
405–420 nm light source. J Cosmet Laser Ther 2003; 5:
111–7.
19 Kawada A, Aragane Y, Kameyama H, Sangen Y, Tezuka T.
Acne phototherapy with a high-intensity, enhanced,
narrow-band, blue light source: an open study and in vitro
investigation. J Dermatol Sci 2002; 30: 129–35.
20 Shalita AR, Harth Y, Elman M. AcnePhotoClearing (APC)
using a novel, high intensity enhanced narrowband, blue
light source. Clin Appl Notes 2000; 9: 1–4. [ESC Sharplan].
21 Harth Y, Ellman M, Shalita AR. Acne phototherapy,
Poster P2. 59th Annual Meeting of the American Academy
of Dermatology, March 2–7, 2001, Washington, DC, p. 153.
22 Sigurdsson V, Knulst AC, van Weelden H. Phototherapy of
acne vulgaris with visible light. Dermatology 1997; 194:
256–60.
23 Lavker RM, Leydon JJ, McGinley KJ. The relationship
between bacteria and the abnormal follicular keratinization
in acne vulgaris. J Invest Dermatol 1981; 77: 325–30.
24 Papageorgiou P, Katsambus A, Chu A. Phototherapy with
blue (415 nm) and red (660 nm) light in the treatment of
acne vulgaris. Br J Dermatol 2000; 142: 973–8.
25 Finlay AY, Khan GK. Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI)
– a simple practical measure for routine clinical use. Clin
Exp Dermatol 1994; 19: 210–6.
26 Leydon JL, McGinley KJ, Mills OH Jr, Kligman AM.
Propionibacterium levels in patients with and without acne
vulgaris. J Invest Dermatol 1975; 65: 382–4.
27 Kligman AM. In: G Plewig, AM Kligman, eds. Acne
Rosacea, 2nd edn. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag; 1993:
26–346.
28 Futsaether CM, Kjeldstad B, Johnsson A. Intracellular pH
changes induced in Propionibacterium acnes by UVA
radiation and blue light. J Photochem Photobiol B 1995; 31:
125–31.
29 Cunliffe WJ, Goulden V. Phototherapy and acne vulgaris.
Br J Dermatol 2000; 142: 855–6.
30 Webber J, Lou Y, Crilly R, Fromm D, Kessel D. An apoptotic
response to photodynamic therapy with endogenous
protoporphyrin in vivo. J Photochem Photobiol B 1996; 35:
209–11.
31 Kalka K, Merck H, Mukhtar H. Photodynamic therapy in
dermatology. J Am Acad Dermatol 2000; 42: 389–413.
© 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. • Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology, 7, 180–188