Daylight photodynamic therapy with methyl aminolevulinate cream is effective and nearly painless in treating actinic keratoses: a randomised, investigator-blinded, controlled, phase III study throughout Europe
Background Unmet needs exist in actinic keratosis (AK) treatment. Daylight photodynamic therapy (DL‐PDT) has shown good efficacy and safety results compared to conventional PDT (c‐PDT) in a recent Phase III multi‐centre randomised controlled trial in Australia among 100 subjects with AKs. Objectives...
Saved in:
Published in | Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology Vol. 29; no. 12; pp. 2342 - 2348 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
England
Blackwell Publishing Ltd
01.12.2015
Wiley |
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
Summary: | Background
Unmet needs exist in actinic keratosis (AK) treatment. Daylight photodynamic therapy (DL‐PDT) has shown good efficacy and safety results compared to conventional PDT (c‐PDT) in a recent Phase III multi‐centre randomised controlled trial in Australia among 100 subjects with AKs.
Objectives
Demonstrate non‐inferior efficacy and superior safety of DL‐PDT compared to c‐PDT in treating multiple mild and/or moderate facial/scalp AKs.
Methods
Phase III, 12 week, multi‐centre, randomised, investigator‐blinded, controlled, intra‐individual study conducted at different latitudes in Europe. AKs of adult subjects were treated once with methyl aminolevulinate (MAL) DL‐PDT on one side of the face and MAL c‐PDT contralaterally. Endpoints for DL‐PDT concerned efficacy (non‐inferiority regarding complete lesion response at week 12) and safety (superiority regarding subject's assessment of pain after treatment, on an 11‐point numeric rating scale). Safety evaluation also included incidence of adverse events. Subject satisfaction was described using a questionnaire at baseline and last visit.
Results
At week 12, the total lesion complete response rate with DL‐PDT was similar (non‐inferior) to c‐PDT (70% vs. 74%, respectively; 95% CI [−9.5; 2.4] in PP analysis, confirmed in ITT analysis). In addition, efficacy of DL‐PDT was demonstrated regardless of weather conditions (sunny or cloudy). DL‐PDT was nearly painless compared to c‐PDT (0.7 vs. 4.4, respectively; P < 0.001), better tolerated and resulted in higher subject satisfaction.
Conclusion
DL‐PDT in comparison with c‐PDT was as effective, better tolerated and nearly painless with high patient satisfaction, and may be considered a treatment of choice to meet needs of patients with mild or moderate facial/scalp AKs. |
---|---|
Bibliography: | Galderma R&D istex:79E0A7BDA0F8B5312157F70A9926A0E58D570B53 ark:/67375/WNG-DQZ6DLL6-9 ArticleID:JDV13228 The investigators received grants for conducting the studies. Mrs. Leclerc and Mr. Kerrouche are employees of Galderma R&D. Conflicts of interest Funding sources This study was funded by Galderma R&D. ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 23 ObjectType-Undefined-3 |
ISSN: | 0926-9959 1468-3083 1468-3083 |
DOI: | 10.1111/jdv.13228 |