Efficacy of IPL therapy for the treatment of acne vulgaris: A meta-analysis.

Abstract

Intense pulse light (IPL) has been adopted by numerous patients. However, no existing study has analyzed the efficiency and safety of IPL in the treatment of acne vulgaris. To assess the efficiency and safety of IPL in the treatment of acne vulgaris. Electronic databases, including Embase, Cochrane Library, and MEDLINE, were retrieved to identify related studies. In this study, the primary and secondary outcomes were the mean percentage reduction of inflammatory acne lesion improvement (MPRI) and the mean percentage reduction of noninflammatory acne lesion improvement (NMPRI), respectively. Between-study heterogeneities were assessed using theI2 statistic. Eight randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including 450 patients were enrolled into the present analysis. With regard to MPRI, the result of IPL group was poorer than that of control group [mean deviation (MD)=-4.37 (95% confidence interval CI: -7.83, -0.91), P=.01]. In addition, the efficiency of IPL was poor among African and Asian populations [MD=-3.87 (95% CI: -7.36, -0.37), P=.03; MD=-28.37 (95% CI: -52.26, -4.18), P=.02]. Meanwhile, difference in the efficiency between IPL and 1064nm Nd:YAG was not statistically significant [MD=-3.25 (95% CI: -7.01, -0.51). P=.09]. Besides, the efficiency of IPL was lower than that of PDL [MD=-28.37 (95% CI: -52.26, -4.18), P=.02]. There was no statistically significant difference in the efficiency between IPL and other treatments for NMPRI. With regard to adverse effects, erythema (46.73%) and pain (39.13%) were the most common. IPL is not so efficient as other supplementary therapies. For inflammatory acne lesions, the efficiency of IPL is poorer than that of PDT. Difference in geographic regions may affect the IPL efficiency. However, the results obtained in this study should be cautiously interpreted due to the heterogeneities and the lack of studies with a large sample size.