A review of home phototherapy for psoriasis

Volume 16, Number 2
February 2010

A review of home phototherapy for psoriasis�
Bridgit V Nolan1, Brad A Yentzer MD2, Steven R Feldman MD PhD2
Dermatology Online Journal 16 (2): 1

1. SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, New York
2. Center for Dermatology Research, Department of Dermatology; Wake Forest University School of Medicine; Winston-Salem, North Carolina. sfeldman@wfubmc.edu

Abstract

Background: Phototherapy is a mainstay in the treatment of psoriasis and other photoresponsive dermatoses and home phototherapy has broadened therapeutic options.

Purpose: To describe the history of home phototherapy, the technological advances in the safety and efficacy of the equipment available, and the associated issues of cost, convenience, adherence, and quality of life.

Methods: We conducted a literature review of home phototherapy, broad-band UVB, narrow-band UVB, and PUVA phototherapy using PUBMED. A Google search of home phototherapy equipment and technology was also undertaken.

Results: Technological advances in home phototherapy equipment have allowed for more treatment options and improvements in safety and efficacy. One randomized, controlled trial found results comparable to office-based phototherapy. Home phototherapy is convenient, cost-effective, and associated with better quality of life compared to outpatient phototherapy treatment. One trial found that adherence to home phototherapy regimens was better than to oral retinoids.

Conclusions: Home phototherapy is a well-tolerated, efficacious, economical and patient friendly therapeutic option. Advantages of home phototherapy include improved quality of life, greater convenience, lower cost, and less time lost from work and social activities. Dermatologists should strongly consider home phototherapy as a first-line treatment option for appropriately selected psoriasis patients.

Here are some of the highlights from the study. I do recommend that you take the time to read the entire article at: http://dermatology.cdlib.org/1602/reviews/home_pt/feldman.html

UVA (PUVA) Comparison with UVB Narrow Band

Comparisons using the split-body approach have been made to assess the relative efficacy of trimethylpsoralen bath PUVA and NB-UVB in patients with chronic plaque psoriasis [21, 22]. The decrease in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score was greater on the NB-UVB side compared with topical PUVA, and this difference occurred earlier during the course of treatment on the NB-UVB treated side. Additionally, NB-UVB treatment was associated with fewer side effects and better tolerability. These results suggest that NB-UVB is more effective, efficient, and better tolerated compared to topical PUVA in the treatment of chronic plaque psoriasis psoriasis [22]. Comparisons of PUVA with oral psoralen versus NB-UVB phototherapy demonstrate that PUVA is more effective and efficient in clearing and maintaining remission in patients with chronic plaque psoriasis (n=93). Clearance was achieved in 84 percent of patients treated with PUVA, after an average of 17 treatments compared to NB-UVB treatment, which resulted in clearance for 65 percent of patients after an average of 28.5 sessions (n=93). Remission at six months was 68 percent in the PUVA group versus 35 percent in the NB-UVB group. However, the side effects associated with PUVA were greater, with 49 percent reporting erythema in the PUVA group compared to only 22 percent in patients undergoing NB-UVB [23]. It should also be noted that this study used twice-weekly dosing with NB-UVB versus the standard 3-5 times per week of UVB phototherapy. Because PUVA is also associated with potential systemic side effects (erythema, pruritus, nausea, ocular damage, and increased risk of skin cancer) as well as death from accidental overexposure, it is generally not recommended as an option for home phototherapy.

Home Phototherapy

Over the years, there have been numerous studies to determine the efficacy of home phototherapy, including a simple evaluation of home phototherapy with and without the concurrent use of topical treatment, home phototherapy in addition to systemic therapy, and a pragmatic, randomized controlled trial comparing home versus outpatient phototherapy (Table 1). The efficacy of home phototherapy was demonstrated by complete remission of psoriatic lesions in 20 of 28 (71.4%) patients with long-standing, severe psoriasis after 45 exposures to high-dose BB-UVB home phototherapy as a sole therapeutic intervention. Of note, the subjects underwent MED determination and were closely monitored for response to treatment with weekly visits. This arrangement constitutes more supervision than many home phototherapy regimens. The need for adequate monitoring of response to treatment and incidences of adverse events is a major consideration in prescribing home phototherapy as a therapeutic intervention. This consideration underscores the importance of using home phototherapy units equipped with prescription controlled timers to limit the number of treatments between office visits. Additionally, patients with extensive, recalcitrant psoriasis showed clearance of psoriatic lesions in 55 of 56 (98.2%) patients after 8 weeks of BB-UVB treatment in suberythrogenic dose with concurrent use of topical coal tar [28]. In patients with patch and early plaque stage mycosis fungoides, home phototherapy consisting of erythemogenic doses of UVB resulted in clinical and histopathological clearance and prolonged remission in 7 of 31 patients. A comparison of the efficacy of high output UVB at home and at physician offices in patients with recalcitrant hand eczema demonstrated much improvement in 7 of 11 (63.6%) patients in the home group and 11 of 13 (84.6%) patients in the outpatient group [30]. Eighteen of 23 psoriasis patients demonstrated complete clearance with an additional 3 showing marked improvement with the use of NB-UVB. NB-UVB was also shown to be effective in a variety of other photoresponsive dermatoses (Table 1). Home phototherapy in conjunction with oral acitretin for 12 weeks in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis reduced PASI score by 22 percent and was clinically significant as demonstrated by an associated improvement in quality of life (as measured by DLQI).

Home phototherapy had similar efficacy to outpatient phototherapy in a large, randomized, well-controlled trial (n=195). For patients undergoing home phototherapy, 82 percent and 70 percent reached Self-Administered Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (SAPASI) 50 and PASI 50, respectively, compared with 79 percent and 73 percent of the patients receiving outpatient treatment. Additionally, the median SAPASI and PASI scores for patients receiving home phototherapy decreased by 82 percent and 74 percent, respectively, compared with 79 percent and 70 percent decreases in the outpatient group. The overall treatment effect, as assessed by the mean reduction in PSAI and SAPASI, and the increase in quality of life was significant and similar between the two groups. As used in this study, home phototherapy was similar in efficacy to standard outpatient phototherapy.

Safety of home phototherapy devices

Adverse effects associated with phototherapy include both acute adverse effects and cumulative, dose-related effects that occur with prolonged use. Early adverse effects associated with BB- and NB-UVB phototherapy are typically limited to erythema and drying of the skin, with maximal erythema occurring between 8 and 24 hours following exposure. Blistering represents a severe acute adverse event more commonly associated with exposure to BB-UVB phototherapy compared to NB-UVB, due to the lower erythemogenicity of NB-UVB. Concerns about the possible increased risk of acute adverse events in the home setting has raised questions about the appropriateness and safety of home phototherapy. Side effects of home phototherapy are common with 44 percent of patients reporting adverse effects, but the reported side effects are mild and include erythema (36%), blisters (1%), pruritus (8%), and dryness (1%). In a comparison to home versus outpatient phototherapy, there was mild erythema in 87 percent of subjects, burning sensation in 56 percent, severe erythema in 36 percent, and blistering in 6 percent, with no difference in incidence of acute adverse events between the two groups. Thus, acute adverse effects appear to be mild and well-tolerated, with severe reactions occurring in low incidence. Late adverse effects result from the cumulative UVB dose, which leads to aesthetic changes, including premature aging (photoaging), wrinkling, and leathery appearance, increased fragility of the skin, and increased risk of photocarginogenesis. Such late adverse effects correlate directly with the total cumulative dose and the incidence of acute adverse events. Data investigating the carcinogenetic risk associated with exposure to BB- versus NB-UVB do not demonstrate a significant difference. Because photocarginogenesis is directly related to the cumulative dose of UV light and to the incidence of acute adverse events, the presumed long-term risk associated with home phototherapy may be similar to that associated with outpatient treatment. Whereas there are good data demonstrating the long-term safety of physician-administered phototherapy, no such data are available for home treatment. However, the existing data demonstrates no differences in acute adverse events or total cumulative ultraviolet dose and there are no data suggesting that home phototherapy is less safe than standard outpatient treatment [33].

Improved technology has allowed for the evolution of safer home phototherapy devices. Innovative safety features in newer units include a key-locked ON/OFF switch to prevent unauthorized use, a built-in controlled prescription timer (CPT), and a failsafe feature that disables the unit in the event of malfunction [38-45]. The controlled prescription timer (CPT) ensures that the equipment can only be used for a certain number of treatments as prescribed by the doctor between office visits. Such innovations make phototherapy safer and more appropriate for home use by allowing greater monitoring for appropriate response to treatment and for incidence of adverse events. Additionally, these features decrease the possibility of unauthorized use or inappropriate use and thus reduce physician and patient worry about potential side-effects, lack of follow up, or abuse.

Advantages of home phototherapy

The advantages of home phototherapy to both doctor and patient are numerous and include convenience, lower cost, better adherence to treatment, and improved quality of life [55]. In terms of treatment effectiveness, adherence is one of the most important factors in determining clinical outcomes. Patients’ adherence to home phototherapy regimens is high and may be even better than to oral psoriasis treatment [32]. Furthermore, improved quality of life, which is attributable to a certain form of treatment, is likely to foster better adherence to that treatment.

Convenience

Repeated journeys to the hospital or outpatient offices for phototherapy pose an obvious inconvenience and expense. Geographic, work, and economic constraints compound the difficulty for patients to maintain an adequate treatment schedule. Treatment plans which are too complicated, costly, or time-consuming may increase the burden of chronic disease. Convenience factors played a major role in patients’ decisions regarding mode of treatment and adherence to treatment. In a survey of patients undergoing home phototherapy, forty percent of users identified “time” as their reason for selecting home phototherapy and an additional seventeen percent chose it due to “difficulty with work schedule”. Other reasons relating to convenience included “convenience of being at home” and “moving from the city” [4]. In another survey, 42 percent of patients undergoing outpatient phototherapy described this method as “inconvenient” and 75 percent indicated that home phototherapy would be helpful. The importance of convenience factors and the relationship between convenience and adherence has been emphasized in the dermatology literature. Additionally, technological advances in equipment design have made home phototherapy units more convenient. Home phototherapy units now operate on standard house electrical current. Many have convenience features, such as casters, which allow for easy moving; adjustable wheels that ease movement on any type of floor surface; and wings or doors, which can be closed or folded away for easy storage (Table 2).

Once again, see the entire article at: http://dermatology.cdlib.org/1602/reviews/home_pt/feldman.html

Share and Enjoy: