Blue light

Photodynamic light therapies (PDLs) have emerged as significant adjuvant approaches for treating acne. In particular, such therapies have been used for acne refractory to standard retinoid or combined retinoid and antimicrobial regimens. Why write about PDL in a column devoted to topical cosmeceutical products and ingredients? Blue light warrants inclusion because it has been studied in comparison to topical cosmeceutical treatments, and it is used in conjunction with other topical approaches.

Blue light exerts a phototoxic effect on the heme metabolism of Propionibacterium acnes, and it is considered effective by targeting part of the etiologic pathway of acne. It has become a widely used option for inflammatory acne (J. Drugs. Dermatol. 2006;5:605-10).

Early work

In 1990, Meffert et al. were the first to show that a blue light–type, high-pressure lamp could improve acne and seborrhea (10 10-minute treatments, cumulative light dose 325 J/cm²). Given the copious amounts of porphyrins stored in lipophilic P. acnes, the technology could be targeted to destroy propionibacteria, and the researchers observed a decline in the porphyrin content inside acne follicles. They concluded that short-range visible light (400-420 nm) was a viable option for acne treatment during the light-poor season of the year (Dermatol. Monatsschr. 1990;176:597-603). It was subsequently established that treatment with UV-free blue light in the range of 405-420 nm leads to the elimination of acne bacteria by virtue of the effects on the porphyrins generated naturally by P. acnes (J. Cosmet. Laser. Ther. 2003;5:111-7). Notably, blue light appears to photoinactivate P. acnes, but it does not penetrate deeply into the skin (Dermatol. Online J. 2011;17:2).

In an open study of the then-novel high-intensity, enhanced, narrow-band, blue-light phototherapy, Kawada et al. treated 30 acne patients (27 female, 3 male) twice a week for up to 5 weeks. A reduction of 64% was seen in acne lesions, and in vitro data showed a significant decline in P. acnes, but not in Staphylococcus epidermidis (J. Dermatol. Sci. 2002;30:129-35).

Mechanism of action

In 2006, Shnitkind et al. studied the effect of narrow-band blue light on the inflammatory process in the presence and absence of cytokines and ultraviolet B using interleukin-1 alpha (IL-1alpha) and intercellular adhesion molecule 1 (ICAM-1) as markers for inflammation. They found that blue light treatment of HaCaT and hTERT cells decreased levels of IL-1alpha by 82% in HaCaT and by 75% in hTERT. When blue light was combined with ultraviolet B, the respective reductions were 95% and 91%. Similar reductions in ICAM-1 expression were seen in HaCaT, but not in hTERT. The researchers concluded that narrow-band blue light exerts anti-inflammatory effects on keratinocytes by reducing cytokine-induced synthesis of IL-1alpha and ICAM-1. They suggested that these findings imply a broader range of effects is exerted on the inflammatory process by narrow-band blue light than previously understood (J. Drugs. Dermatol. 2006;5:605-10).

Comparison studies

In 2000, Papageorgiou et al. randomized 107 patients with mild to moderate acne to four treatment groups: blue light (peak at 415 nm), mixed blue and red light (peaks at 415 and 660 nm), cool white light, and 5% benzoyl peroxide cream, for 12 weeks of active treatment. Phototherapy using portable light sources was conducted daily for 15 minutes; comparative assessments among the three phototherapy groups were done with observers blinded. The investigators found that the greatest improvement in acne lesions occurred in the blue and red light combined group. The blue/red treatment was significantly superior to blue light alone at 4 and 8 weeks but not 12 weeks, benzoyl peroxide at weeks 8 and 12, and white light at all assessments (Br. J. Dermatol. 2000;142:973-8).

Gold et al. performed a multicenter clinical evaluation comparing blue light to topical 1% clindamycin solution with respect to safety and efficacy. They found that clindamycin was associated with a 14% reduction of inflammatory lesions, but blue light reduced such lesions by an average of 34% (J. Drugs. Dermatol. 2005;4:64-70).

In another study, 20 patients with moderate to severe facial acne were treated in four weekly sessions with topical aminolevulinic acid (ALA)-photodynamic therapy with blue light (415 nm) on the right side of the face, or blue light alone on the left side of the face. At 4, 8, 12, and 16 weeks after the start of treatment, the mean percent reductions in inflamed lesions were higher in the ALA-PDT areas (32%, 50.9%, 65.9%, and 71.1%, respectively) than in the blue light–only treatment areas (20.7%, 27%, 57.7%, and 56.7%), but the differences were not statistically significant. Side effects, which included pain, stinging, erythema, itching, peeling, oozing, and pustules, were more pronounced in the areas treated with ALA-PDT (Photodermatol. Photoimmunol. Photomed. 2007;23:186-90).

However, in a 2007 study of 22 patients with moderate to severe acne randomized to one of three ALA-PDT treatments – intense pulsed light (IPL; 600-850 nm), a combination of IPL (580-980 nm) and bipolar radiofrequency (RF) energies, or blue light (417 nm) – in three sessions at 2-week intervals, ALA-PDT with activation by IPL yielded the most consistent, lasting improvement in moderate to severe acne (J. Drugs Dermatol. 2007;6:1010-6).

In a study of 60 volunteers with facial acne (grades II and III), de Arruda et al. compared the safety and efficacy of blue light to topical benzoyl peroxide 5% over 4 weeks. Thirty patients received blue light treatment twice a week, and the other 30 self-applied the topical formulation twice daily. The improvements were similar in both groups, but side effects were milder in the blue light group (An. Bras. Dermatol. 2009;84:463-8).

Choi et al. compared the bactericidal effects of 5-aminolevulinic acid (ALA) with blue and red light on P. acnes and found that blue light was more effective than red light phototherapy in eliminating the bacteria unless ALA was added, which substantially augmented red light phototherapy efficacy (J. Dermatol. 2011;38:661-6).

In summarizing the off-label uses of light-based treatments and PDT using topical precursors of porphyrins, Sakamoto et al. observed that blue light alone lessens acne severity due to anti-inflammatory effects; PDT using 5-ALA or ALA derivatives provides antimicrobial and anti-inflammatory activity; and, at high doses, red-light PDT may suppress or eradicate sebaceous glands, yielding clinical improvement (J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 2010;63:183-93).

Combination therapy

In 2011, Wheeland and Dhawan assessed the efficacy and tolerability of treating mild to moderate facial acne using a novel, handheld, light-emitting diode (LED) blue-light device, along with a foam cleanser containing 5% glycolic acid and 2% salicylic acid, plus a serum containing 1.25% salicylic acid, 0.5% niacinamide, 0.08% liposomal-based azelaic acid, and superoxide dismutase. In all, 28 of 35 adults aged 25-45 years completed the 8-week study, in which they used the device twice daily (in addition to the cleanser before treatments and the serum after nighttime treatments). Significant reductions in inflammatory lesion counts were seen from week 1 onward, and significant reductions in noninflammatory lesion counts were seen from week 4 onward compared with baseline counts. The number and severity of flares were significantly reduced from baseline as well.

Therapy was well received by patients, with more than 90% claiming improvement in overall skin appearance and other parameters. In addition, 86% described the treatment as gentler than other therapies. (J. Drugs Dermatol. 2011;10:596-602).

Products

The Skin Clarifying Blue Light device has a power density of 400 mW/cm², which is 10 times the power of other LED acne devices. This high power density allows the Skin Clarifying Blue Light device to deliver high levels of efficacy with short treatment times. When used as stand-alone treatment, it delivered a 70% reduction in inflammatory lesions in 8 weeks. The success of products designed for self-administration has coincided with the rampant interest in the creation of smart phone applications (J. Cosmet. Laser. Ther. 2011;13:308-14; J. Clin. Aesthet. Dermatol. 2009;2:40-4; J. Clin. Aesthet. Dermatol. 2009;2:44-50). That is, blue-light therapy apps have been developed for the iPhone and the iPod touch. None, however, has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration, although at least one is said to be under investigation in a clinical trial. I am skeptical about the efficacy of these LED-backlit apps and concerned about potentially prolonged magnetic radiation exposure that would be required. The self-administered devices appear to be a more reliable alternative.

Conclusion

Blue light can effectively be used to treat mild to moderate acne by causing photodynamic destruction of P. acnes. It can be used alone or in combination with topical or other light regimens. Additional studies are needed before a consensus protocol can be established, and future research goals should include establishing the optimal incubation time, activating light source, and frequency of treatment.

Dr. Baumann is in private practice in Miami Beach. She did not disclose any conflicts of interest. To respond to this column, or to suggest topics for future columns, write to her at sknews@frontlinemedcom.com.

Photodynamic light therapies (PDLs) have emerged as significant adjuvant approaches for treating acne. In particular, such therapies have been used for acne refractory to standard retinoid or combined retinoid and antimicrobial regimens. Why write about PDL in a column devoted to topical cosmeceutical products and ingredients? Blue light warrants inclusion because it has been studied in comparison to topical cosmeceutical treatments, and it is used in conjunction with other topical approaches.

Blue light exerts a phototoxic effect on the heme metabolism of Propionibacterium acnes, and it is considered effective by targeting part of the etiologic pathway of acne. It has become a widely used option for inflammatory acne (J. Drugs. Dermatol. 2006;5:605-10).

Early work

In 1990, Meffert et al. were the first to show that a blue light–type, high-pressure lamp could improve acne and seborrhea (10 10-minute treatments, cumulative light dose 325 J/cm²). Given the copious amounts of porphyrins stored in lipophilic P. acnes, the technology could be targeted to destroy propionibacteria, and the researchers observed a decline in the porphyrin content inside acne follicles. They concluded that short-range visible light (400-420 nm) was a viable option for acne treatment during the light-poor season of the year (Dermatol. Monatsschr. 1990;176:597-603). It was subsequently established that treatment with UV-free blue light in the range of 405-420 nm leads to the elimination of acne bacteria by virtue of the effects on the porphyrins generated naturally by P. acnes (J. Cosmet. Laser. Ther. 2003;5:111-7). Notably, blue light appears to photoinactivate P. acnes, but it does not penetrate deeply into the skin (Dermatol. Online J. 2011;17:2).

In an open study of the then-novel high-intensity, enhanced, narrow-band, blue-light phototherapy, Kawada et al. treated 30 acne patients (27 female, 3 male) twice a week for up to 5 weeks. A reduction of 64% was seen in acne lesions, and in vitro data showed a significant decline in P. acnes, but not in Staphylococcus epidermidis (J. Dermatol. Sci. 2002;30:129-35).

Mechanism of action

In 2006, Shnitkind et al. studied the effect of narrow-band blue light on the inflammatory process in the presence and absence of cytokines and ultraviolet B using interleukin-1 alpha (IL-1alpha) and intercellular adhesion molecule 1 (ICAM-1) as markers for inflammation. They found that blue light treatment of HaCaT and hTERT cells decreased levels of IL-1alpha by 82% in HaCaT and by 75% in hTERT. When blue light was combined with ultraviolet B, the respective reductions were 95% and 91%. Similar reductions in ICAM-1 expression were seen in HaCaT, but not in hTERT. The researchers concluded that narrow-band blue light exerts anti-inflammatory effects on keratinocytes by reducing cytokine-induced synthesis of IL-1alpha and ICAM-1. They suggested that these findings imply a broader range of effects is exerted on the inflammatory process by narrow-band blue light than previously understood (J. Drugs. Dermatol. 2006;5:605-10).

Comparison studies

In 2000, Papageorgiou et al. randomized 107 patients with mild to moderate acne to four treatment groups: blue light (peak at 415 nm), mixed blue and red light (peaks at 415 and 660 nm), cool white light, and 5% benzoyl peroxide cream, for 12 weeks of active treatment. Phototherapy using portable light sources was conducted daily for 15 minutes; comparative assessments among the three phototherapy groups were done with observers blinded. The investigators found that the greatest improvement in acne lesions occurred in the blue and red light combined group. The blue/red treatment was significantly superior to blue light alone at 4 and 8 weeks but not 12 weeks, benzoyl peroxide at weeks 8 and 12, and white light at all assessments (Br. J. Dermatol. 2000;142:973-8).

Gold et al. performed a multicenter clinical evaluation comparing blue light to topical 1% clindamycin solution with respect to safety and efficacy. They found that clindamycin was associated with a 14% reduction of inflammatory lesions, but blue light reduced such lesions by an average of 34% (J. Drugs. Dermatol. 2005;4:64-70).

In another study, 20 patients with moderate to severe facial acne were treated in four weekly sessions with topical aminolevulinic acid (ALA)-photodynamic therapy with blue light (415 nm) on the right side of the face, or blue light alone on the left side of the face. At 4, 8, 12, and 16 weeks after the start of treatment, the mean percent reductions in inflamed lesions were higher in the ALA-PDT areas (32%, 50.9%, 65.9%, and 71.1%, respectively) than in the blue light–only treatment areas (20.7%, 27%, 57.7%, and 56.7%), but the differences were not statistically significant. Side effects, which included pain, stinging, erythema, itching, peeling, oozing, and pustules, were more pronounced in the areas treated with ALA-PDT (Photodermatol. Photoimmunol. Photomed. 2007;23:186-90).

However, in a 2007 study of 22 patients with moderate to severe acne randomized to one of three ALA-PDT treatments – intense pulsed light (IPL; 600-850 nm), a combination of IPL (580-980 nm) and bipolar radiofrequency (RF) energies, or blue light (417 nm) – in three sessions at 2-week intervals, ALA-PDT with activation by IPL yielded the most consistent, lasting improvement in moderate to severe acne (J. Drugs Dermatol. 2007;6:1010-6).

In a study of 60 volunteers with facial acne (grades II and III), de Arruda et al. compared the safety and efficacy of blue light to topical benzoyl peroxide 5% over 4 weeks. Thirty patients received blue light treatment twice a week, and the other 30 self-applied the topical formulation twice daily. The improvements were similar in both groups, but side effects were milder in the blue light group (An. Bras. Dermatol. 2009;84:463-8).

Choi et al. compared the bactericidal effects of 5-aminolevulinic acid (ALA) with blue and red light on P. acnes and found that blue light was more effective than red light phototherapy in eliminating the bacteria unless ALA was added, which substantially augmented red light phototherapy efficacy (J. Dermatol. 2011;38:661-6).

In summarizing the off-label uses of light-based treatments and PDT using topical precursors of porphyrins, Sakamoto et al. observed that blue light alone lessens acne severity due to anti-inflammatory effects; PDT using 5-ALA or ALA derivatives provides antimicrobial and anti-inflammatory activity; and, at high doses, red-light PDT may suppress or eradicate sebaceous glands, yielding clinical improvement (J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 2010;63:183-93).

Combination therapy

In 2011, Wheeland and Dhawan assessed the efficacy and tolerability of treating mild to moderate facial acne using a novel, handheld, light-emitting diode (LED) blue-light device, along with a foam cleanser containing 5% glycolic acid and 2% salicylic acid, plus a serum containing 1.25% salicylic acid, 0.5% niacinamide, 0.08% liposomal-based azelaic acid, and superoxide dismutase. In all, 28 of 35 adults aged 25-45 years completed the 8-week study, in which they used the device twice daily (in addition to the cleanser before treatments and the serum after nighttime treatments). Significant reductions in inflammatory lesion counts were seen from week 1 onward, and significant reductions in noninflammatory lesion counts were seen from week 4 onward compared with baseline counts. The number and severity of flares were significantly reduced from baseline as well.

Therapy was well received by patients, with more than 90% claiming improvement in overall skin appearance and other parameters. In addition, 86% described the treatment as gentler than other therapies. (J. Drugs Dermatol. 2011;10:596-602).

Products

The Skin Clarifying Blue Light device has a power density of 400 mW/cm², which is 10 times the power of other LED acne devices. This high power density allows the Skin Clarifying Blue Light device to deliver high levels of efficacy with short treatment times. When used as stand-alone treatment, it delivered a 70% reduction in inflammatory lesions in 8 weeks. The success of products designed for self-administration has coincided with the rampant interest in the creation of smart phone applications (J. Cosmet. Laser. Ther. 2011;13:308-14; J. Clin. Aesthet. Dermatol. 2009;2:40-4; J. Clin. Aesthet. Dermatol. 2009;2:44-50). That is, blue-light therapy apps have been developed for the iPhone and the iPod touch. None, however, has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration, although at least one is said to be under investigation in a clinical trial. I am skeptical about the efficacy of these LED-backlit apps and concerned about potentially prolonged magnetic radiation exposure that would be required. The self-administered devices appear to be a more reliable alternative.

Conclusion

Blue light can effectively be used to treat mild to moderate acne by causing photodynamic destruction of P. acnes. It can be used alone or in combination with topical or other light regimens. Additional studies are needed before a consensus protocol can be established, and future research goals should include establishing the optimal incubation time, activating light source, and frequency of treatment.

Dr. Baumann is in private practice in Miami Beach. She did not disclose any conflicts of interest. To respond to this column, or to suggest topics for future columns, write to her at sknews@frontlinemedcom.com.

Photodynamic light therapies (PDLs) have emerged as significant adjuvant approaches for treating acne. In particular, such therapies have been used for acne refractory to standard retinoid or combined retinoid and antimicrobial regimens. Why write about PDL in a column devoted to topical cosmeceutical products and ingredients? Blue light warrants inclusion because it has been studied in comparison to topical cosmeceutical treatments, and it is used in conjunction with other topical approaches.

Blue light exerts a phototoxic effect on the heme metabolism of Propionibacterium acnes, and it is considered effective by targeting part of the etiologic pathway of acne. It has become a widely used option for inflammatory acne (J. Drugs. Dermatol. 2006;5:605-10).

Early work

In 1990, Meffert et al. were the first to show that a blue light–type, high-pressure lamp could improve acne and seborrhea (10 10-minute treatments, cumulative light dose 325 J/cm²). Given the copious amounts of porphyrins stored in lipophilic P. acnes, the technology could be targeted to destroy propionibacteria, and the researchers observed a decline in the porphyrin content inside acne follicles. They concluded that short-range visible light (400-420 nm) was a viable option for acne treatment during the light-poor season of the year (Dermatol. Monatsschr. 1990;176:597-603). It was subsequently established that treatment with UV-free blue light in the range of 405-420 nm leads to the elimination of acne bacteria by virtue of the effects on the porphyrins generated naturally by P. acnes (J. Cosmet. Laser. Ther. 2003;5:111-7). Notably, blue light appears to photoinactivate P. acnes, but it does not penetrate deeply into the skin (Dermatol. Online J. 2011;17:2).

In an open study of the then-novel high-intensity, enhanced, narrow-band, blue-light phototherapy, Kawada et al. treated 30 acne patients (27 female, 3 male) twice a week for up to 5 weeks. A reduction of 64% was seen in acne lesions, and in vitro data showed a significant decline in P. acnes, but not in Staphylococcus epidermidis (J. Dermatol. Sci. 2002;30:129-35).

Mechanism of action

In 2006, Shnitkind et al. studied the effect of narrow-band blue light on the inflammatory process in the presence and absence of cytokines and ultraviolet B using interleukin-1 alpha (IL-1alpha) and intercellular adhesion molecule 1 (ICAM-1) as markers for inflammation. They found that blue light treatment of HaCaT and hTERT cells decreased levels of IL-1alpha by 82% in HaCaT and by 75% in hTERT. When blue light was combined with ultraviolet B, the respective reductions were 95% and 91%. Similar reductions in ICAM-1 expression were seen in HaCaT, but not in hTERT. The researchers concluded that narrow-band blue light exerts anti-inflammatory effects on keratinocytes by reducing cytokine-induced synthesis of IL-1alpha and ICAM-1. They suggested that these findings imply a broader range of effects is exerted on the inflammatory process by narrow-band blue light than previously understood (J. Drugs. Dermatol. 2006;5:605-10).

Comparison studies

In 2000, Papageorgiou et al. randomized 107 patients with mild to moderate acne to four treatment groups: blue light (peak at 415 nm), mixed blue and red light (peaks at 415 and 660 nm), cool white light, and 5% benzoyl peroxide cream, for 12 weeks of active treatment. Phototherapy using portable light sources was conducted daily for 15 minutes; comparative assessments among the three phototherapy groups were done with observers blinded. The investigators found that the greatest improvement in acne lesions occurred in the blue and red light combined group. The blue/red treatment was significantly superior to blue light alone at 4 and 8 weeks but not 12 weeks, benzoyl peroxide at weeks 8 and 12, and white light at all assessments (Br. J. Dermatol. 2000;142:973-8).

Gold et al. performed a multicenter clinical evaluation comparing blue light to topical 1% clindamycin solution with respect to safety and efficacy. They found that clindamycin was associated with a 14% reduction of inflammatory lesions, but blue light reduced such lesions by an average of 34% (J. Drugs. Dermatol. 2005;4:64-70).

In another study, 20 patients with moderate to severe facial acne were treated in four weekly sessions with topical aminolevulinic acid (ALA)-photodynamic therapy with blue light (415 nm) on the right side of the face, or blue light alone on the left side of the face. At 4, 8, 12, and 16 weeks after the start of treatment, the mean percent reductions in inflamed lesions were higher in the ALA-PDT areas (32%, 50.9%, 65.9%, and 71.1%, respectively) than in the blue light–only treatment areas (20.7%, 27%, 57.7%, and 56.7%), but the differences were not statistically significant. Side effects, which included pain, stinging, erythema, itching, peeling, oozing, and pustules, were more pronounced in the areas treated with ALA-PDT (Photodermatol. Photoimmunol. Photomed. 2007;23:186-90).

However, in a 2007 study of 22 patients with moderate to severe acne randomized to one of three ALA-PDT treatments – intense pulsed light (IPL; 600-850 nm), a combination of IPL (580-980 nm) and bipolar radiofrequency (RF) energies, or blue light (417 nm) – in three sessions at 2-week intervals, ALA-PDT with activation by IPL yielded the most consistent, lasting improvement in moderate to severe acne (J. Drugs Dermatol. 2007;6:1010-6).

In a study of 60 volunteers with facial acne (grades II and III), de Arruda et al. compared the safety and efficacy of blue light to topical benzoyl peroxide 5% over 4 weeks. Thirty patients received blue light treatment twice a week, and the other 30 self-applied the topical formulation twice daily. The improvements were similar in both groups, but side effects were milder in the blue light group (An. Bras. Dermatol. 2009;84:463-8).

Choi et al. compared the bactericidal effects of 5-aminolevulinic acid (ALA) with blue and red light on P. acnes and found that blue light was more effective than red light phototherapy in eliminating the bacteria unless ALA was added, which substantially augmented red light phototherapy efficacy (J. Dermatol. 2011;38:661-6).

In summarizing the off-label uses of light-based treatments and PDT using topical precursors of porphyrins, Sakamoto et al. observed that blue light alone lessens acne severity due to anti-inflammatory effects; PDT using 5-ALA or ALA derivatives provides antimicrobial and anti-inflammatory activity; and, at high doses, red-light PDT may suppress or eradicate sebaceous glands, yielding clinical improvement (J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 2010;63:183-93).

Combination therapy

In 2011, Wheeland and Dhawan assessed the efficacy and tolerability of treating mild to moderate facial acne using a novel, handheld, light-emitting diode (LED) blue-light device, along with a foam cleanser containing 5% glycolic acid and 2% salicylic acid, plus a serum containing 1.25% salicylic acid, 0.5% niacinamide, 0.08% liposomal-based azelaic acid, and superoxide dismutase. In all, 28 of 35 adults aged 25-45 years completed the 8-week study, in which they used the device twice daily (in addition to the cleanser before treatments and the serum after nighttime treatments). Significant reductions in inflammatory lesion counts were seen from week 1 onward, and significant reductions in noninflammatory lesion counts were seen from week 4 onward compared with baseline counts. The number and severity of flares were significantly reduced from baseline as well.

Therapy was well received by patients, with more than 90% claiming improvement in overall skin appearance and other parameters. In addition, 86% described the treatment as gentler than other therapies. (J. Drugs Dermatol. 2011;10:596-602).

Products

The Skin Clarifying Blue Light device has a power density of 400 mW/cm², which is 10 times the power of other LED acne devices. This high power density allows the Skin Clarifying Blue Light device to deliver high levels of efficacy with short treatment times. When used as stand-alone treatment, it delivered a 70% reduction in inflammatory lesions in 8 weeks. The success of products designed for self-administration has coincided with the rampant interest in the creation of smart phone applications (J. Cosmet. Laser. Ther. 2011;13:308-14; J. Clin. Aesthet. Dermatol. 2009;2:40-4; J. Clin. Aesthet. Dermatol. 2009;2:44-50). That is, blue-light therapy apps have been developed for the iPhone and the iPod touch. None, however, has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration, although at least one is said to be under investigation in a clinical trial. I am skeptical about the efficacy of these LED-backlit apps and concerned about potentially prolonged magnetic radiation exposure that would be required. The self-administered devices appear to be a more reliable alternative.

Conclusion

Blue light can effectively be used to treat mild to moderate acne by causing photodynamic destruction of P. acnes. It can be used alone or in combination with topical or other light regimens. Additional studies are needed before a consensus protocol can be established, and future research goals should include establishing the optimal incubation time, activating light source, and frequency of treatment.

Dr. Baumann is in private practice in Miami Beach. She did not disclose any conflicts of interest. To respond to this column, or to suggest topics for future columns, write to her at sknews@frontlinemedcom.com.