Efficacy, tolerability, and patient preference of indoor, simulated, or artificial daylight photodynamic therapy versus conventional lamp-based photodynamic therapy for actinic keratosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Nouf M Al-Otaibi, Merwi S Alhadeyah, Abdulmuhsin H Al-Rashid et al.
✦ AI-curated · Sources linked
In 30 seconds
This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy, tolerability, and patient preference of indoor, simulated, or artificial daylight photodynamic therapy (Indoor/SDL-PDT) compared to conventional lamp-based photodynamic therapy (C-PDT) for actinic keratosis in adults. The analysis of four studies with 171 participants revealed that Indoor/SDL-PDT had a lower complete response rate at 3 months (RR = 0.86, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.89, p < 0.001) but was associated with significantly less pain during treatment.
Key findings
- Indoor/SDL-PDT had a lower complete response rate at 3 months compared to C-PDT (RR = 0.86, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.89, p < 0.001).
- Indoor/SDL-PDT significantly reduced pain during illumination (MD = -4.44 points, 95% CI -7.18 to -1.71, p = 0.001).
- Patients preferred Indoor/SDL-PDT over C-PDT.
- No significant difference was found in erythema or local skin reaction scores.
Why it matters
Understanding the comparative tolerability and efficacy of different photodynamic therapies for actinic keratosis can help clinicians tailor treatment options to individual patient needs, particularly for those who prioritize comfort during procedures.