Objective To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of photodynamic therapy (PDT) for acne vulgaris. Methods PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, CNKI, WanFang Data and VIP databases were electronically searched from inception to August 9th, 2013, to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about PDT for acne vulgaris. References of included studies were also retrieved. Two reviewers independently screened literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Then, meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.2 software. Results A total of 8 RCTs involving 271 patients were included. Because the interventions of included RCTs were different, meta-analysis or descriptive analysis was conducted for studies with the same intervention. The results of meta-analysis showed that ALA-red light-PDT was better than red light alone in clinical remission rate (RR=1.78, 95%CI 1.30 to 2.43, P<0.05). The results of descriptive analysis showed that:the effect of ALA-IPL-PDT was better than IPL alone, the effect of MAL-red light-PDT was better than red light alone, and the effect of MAL-red light-PDT was similar to MAL-IPL-PDT. Conclusion Current evidence shows PDT is effective for acne vulgaris. Adverse reactions including burning pricking pain, erythema, hydroderma, hyperpigmentation and acneiform eruption etc. are tolerated by most patients. Due to limited quantity and quality of the included studies, more high-quality studies are needed to verify the above conclusion.

Citation： LUMeng-ting, WANGHeng, WUJian-bo. Efficacy and Safety of Photodynamic Therapy for Acne Vulgaris: A Systematic Review. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2015, 15(6): 699-704. doi: 10.7507/1672-2531.20150116 Copy