von Kobyletzki G, Freitag M, Herde M, Höxtermann S, Stücker M, Hoffmann K, Altmeyer P
Dermatologische Klinik, Ruhr-Universität Bochum.
Hautarzt. 1999 Jan;50(1):27-33. doi: 10.1007/s001050050860.
Severe atopic dermatitis, especially when involving the face, does not respond well to conventional therapy. In the present prospective randomized trial, we compared therapeutic efficiency of medium-dose UVA1, medium-dose cold light UVA1 (15 treatment courses with 50 J/cm2 each) and combined UVA-UVB phototherapy. Four (13.3%) of 30 UVA1 treated patients, one (3.4%) of 30 UVA1 cold light treated patients and three (30%) of 10 patients treated with combined UVA-UVB discontinued therapy course before finishing treatment protocol because skin status did not improve or even deteriorated. In the other patients treated over a period of three weeks, skin status improved significantly or even cleared completely in 80.8% of UVA1 treated and in 89.7% of UVA1 cold light treated patients resulting in a significant decrease of the SCORAD-Score (UVA1 group from 68.6 +/- SD 10.9 to 29.8 +/- SD 7.1 and UVA1 cold light group from 72.5 +/- SD 13.4 to 23.8 +/- SD 11.6; p < 0.05 each). In the UVA-UVB treated group, the SCORAD-Score also decreased (from 71.0 +/- SD 9.4 to 41.6 +/- 10.5), but significantly less than in both UVA1 treated groups (p < 0.05 each). Four weeks after completing therapy UVA1 treated patients showed a prolonged therapy benefit as compared to UVA-UVB treated patients. Plasma levels of eosinophil cationic protein and soluble interleukin-2 receptor significantly decreased under UVA1 phototherapy but not under UVA-UVB therapy. Compared to conventional UVA1 phototherapy, UVA1 cold light phototherapy showed advantages due to the absence of potentially proinflammatory effects based on temperature-induced increase of skin blood flow (quantified by Laser doppler scanning) and increased sweat production (determined by the patient using a visual analog scale).
重度特应性皮炎,尤其是累及面部时,对传统治疗反应不佳。在本前瞻性随机试验中,我们比较了中剂量UVA1、中剂量冷光UVA1(15个疗程,每次50 J/cm2)及UVA-UVB联合光疗的治疗效果。30例接受UVA1治疗的患者中有4例(13.3%)、30例接受UVA1冷光治疗的患者中有1例(3.4%)、10例接受UVA-UVB联合治疗的患者中有3例(30%)在完成治疗方案前中断了疗程,原因是皮肤状况未改善甚至恶化。在接受为期三周治疗的其他患者中,80.8%接受UVA1治疗及89.7%接受UVA1冷光治疗的患者皮肤状况显著改善甚至完全清除,导致SCORAD评分显著降低(UVA1组从68.6±标准差10.9降至29.8±标准差7.1,UVA1冷光组从72.5±标准差13.4降至23.8±标准差11.6;每组p<0.05)。在UVA-UVB治疗组中,SCORAD评分也有所降低(从71.0±标准差9.4降至41.6±10.5),但显著低于两个UVA1治疗组(每组p<0.05)。完成治疗四周后,与UVA-UVB治疗的患者相比,UVA1治疗的患者显示出更长的治疗益处。UVA1光疗可使嗜酸性粒细胞阳离子蛋白和可溶性白细胞介素-2受体的血浆水平显著降低,但UVA-UVB治疗则不然。与传统UVA1光疗相比,UVA1冷光光疗具有优势,因为它不会因温度诱导的皮肤血流增加(通过激光多普勒扫描定量)和汗液分泌增加(由患者使用视觉模拟量表测定)而产生潜在的促炎作用。