The efficacy of intense pulsed light and heat energy therapy compared to benzoyl peroxide gel 2.5% in the treatment of mild and moderate acne vulgaris

Abstract

The use of technology-based light therapies such as intense pulsed light and heat energy
(IPL) provides an alternative therapy for patients with acne. However, clinical evidence
is required to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the IPL. This study aimed to evaluate the
efficacy of IPL compared to benzoyl peroxide (BP) as standard therapies in patients with
acne vulgaris. The study was conducted with randomized controlled trial parallel design
involving patients with mild and moderate acne vulgaris. Acne severity was determined by
the method of Combined Acne Severity Classification (CASC). Statistical analysis using
repeated measurement analysis of variance was conducted to assess the reduction in
lesions and number of P. acnes in each group followed by independent t-test to compare
of both groups. A p value <0.05 was considered significant. Sixty-two patients with
mild and moderate acne vulgaris were enrolled in this study and treated with IPL (32
patients) and with BP gel 2.5% (30 patients). Two patients from the IPL were dropped
out. All subjects showed improvement in acne lesions. Reduction of the number of
non-inflammatory lesions at IPL therapy group was not significantly different than the
BP gel 2.5% at week 2 (p=0.705) and 4 (p=0.186). Reduction in the number
of inflammatory lesions in the IPL treatment group was not significantly different than BP
gel 2.5% at week 2 (p=0.604) but significantly higher at week 4 (p=0.003). The
reduction of P. acnes colonization in the IPL group was significantly higher than BP gel
2.5% group at week 2 (p=0.000) and 4 (p=0.000). In conclusion, the efficacy of IPL
in the reduction of the number of inflammatory lesions and the P. acnes colonization is
better than BP on patients with acne vulgaris.