| Literature DB >> 25897253 |
Allison P Weinkle1, Vladyslava Doktor2, Jason Emer3.
Abstract
Refining diagnostic criteria has identified key characteristics differentiating rosacea, a chronic skin disorder, from other common cutaneous inflammatory conditions. The current classification system developed by the National Rosacea Society Expert Committee consists of erythematotelangiectatic, papulopustular, phymatous, and ocular subtypes. Each subtype stands as a unique entity among a spectrum, with characteristic symptoms and physical findings, along with an intricate pathophysiology. The main treatment modalities for rosacea include topical, systemic, laser, and light therapies. Topical brimonidine tartrate gel and calcineurin inhibitors are at the forefront of topical therapies, alone or in combination with traditional therapies such as topical metronidazole or azelaic acid and oral tetracyclines or isotretinoin. Vascular laser and intense pulsed light therapies are beneficial for the erythema and telangiectasia, as well as the symptoms (itching, burning, pain, stinging, swelling) of rosacea. Injectable botulinum toxin, topical ivermectin, and microsecond long-pulsed neodymium-yttrium aluminum garnet laser are emerging therapies that may prove to be extremely beneficial in the future. Once a debilitating disorder, rosacea has become a well known and manageable entity in the setting of numerous emerging therapeutic options. Herein, we describe the treatments currently available and give our opinions regarding emerging and combination therapies.Entities:
Keywords: guidelines; management; rhinophyma; rosacea; vascular laser
Year: 2015 PMID: 25897253 PMCID: PMC4396587 DOI: 10.2147/CCID.S58940
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol ISSN: 1178-7015
Figure 1Erythematotelangiectatic rosacea.
Note: Central facial erythema (most prominently on the cheeks) with telangiectasias.
Figure 2Papulopustular rosacea.
Note: Multiple papules and pustules on the central face, lacking comedones and sparing the perioral area.
Figure 3Phymatous rosacea.
Note: Thickened, glandular skin of the nose, creating a cosmetic deformity.
Figure 4Ocular rosacea.
Note: Erythematous conjunctiva with increased watery discharge in the setting of acutely flared granulomatous rosacea.
Rosacea subtypes and corresponding topical, oral, and alternative treatments
| Treatment | Ocular | Phymatous | PPR | ETR |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Topical | ||||
| FDA-approved | – | – | Metronidazole 0.75%, 1% | Brimotidine tartrate gel 0.5% |
| Non FDA-approved | Azithromycin | – | BP-clindamycin | BP-clindamycin |
| Oral | Doxycycline | – | Isotretinoin | Isotretinoin |
| Alternative | Lid hygiene | Nd:YAG laser | Novel lotion (caffeine, zinc gluconate, bisabolol, | Hyaluronic acid 0.2% cream |
Abbreviations: BP, benzoyl peroxide; ETR, erythematotelangiectatic rosacea; PPR, papulopustular rosacea; Nd:YAG, neodymium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser; Er:YAG, erbium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet; PDL, pulsed dye laser; IPL, intense pulsed light; KTP, potassium titanyl phosphate; FDA, US Food and Drug Administration.
Figure 5Before (A) and after (B) injectable botulinum toxin (Botox®, 10 U, 0.05 mL aliquots every 1–2 cm) intradermally into each cheek in combination with pulsed dye laser (10 mm, 10 msec, 7 J/cm).
Note: Clinical results and symptomatic relief were seen rapidly after the treatments.
Figure 6Before (A) and after (B) oxymetazoline (Afrin®) combined with a topical moisturizing cream (CeraVe®) applied twice daily. Significant improvement in facial erythema was seen after only one day of application.
Figure 7(A) Severe perioral dermatitis (a version of acne-rosacea). (B) Dramatic improvement after initiation of oral isotretinoin.
Note: Full clearance with no recurrence was seen after 20 weeks of therapy.
Data from nonablative laser and light studies in rosacea treatment
| Device | N (n) | λ (nm) | Ø (mm) | Pulse (msec) | Fluence (J/cm2) | Treatments (n) | Treatment interval | Follow-up | Reference (laser manufacturer) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PDL | 8 | 577 | 3 | 0.0003 | 0.5–5 | 1 | – | 24 and 48 hours | Anderson and Parish |
| 27 | 585 | 5 | 0.450 | 6.0–7.5 | 1–3 | 6–12 weeks | 6–8 weeks | Lowe et al | |
| 20 (17) | 590–595 | 2×7 | 1.5 | 15–20 | 1–2 | 8 weeks | 4, 8, 12, and 24 weeks | West and Alster | |
| 13 (11) | 595 | 7 | 10 | 9.5 (p), 8.0 (np) | 1 | – | 1 and 6 weeks, 3 and 6 months | Alam et al | |
| 12 | 595 | 7 | 6 | 7–9 | 1 | – | 6–8 weeks | Jasim et al | |
| 40 (35) | 585 | 5 or 7 | 0.45 | 5.4–6.5 | 1–10 | NR | Mean 23.3 months | Tan et al | |
| 32 | 585 | 5 | 0.45 | 6–6.75 | 1 | – | 3 months | Lonne-Rahm et al | |
| 16 | 595 | 7 | 1.5 | 9.5–11.5 | 2 | 8–10 weeks | 2 months | Tan and Tope | |
| 20 (17) | 595 | T: 3×10, E: 12 | T: 40, E: 3 | T: 17–19, E: 6.0–7.0 | 4 | 4 weeks | 2 months | Bernstein and Kligman | |
| 3 | 595 | 10 | 10 | 7.5 | 3 | 2 weeks | 4 and 12 weeks | Togsverd-Bo et al | |
| 21 (18) | 595 | 5–12 | NR | 5.75–13.25 | 1 | – | 6–12 weeks | Lanigan | |
| 26 | 595 | 10 | 6 | 7 | 3 | 4 weeks | 4 weeks | Neuhaus et al | |
| 1 | 585 | 7 | 0.5 | 4.9–5.8 | 3 | NR | 12 months | Moreira et al | |
| 18 (15) | 585 | 7 | 10 | 7–9 | 3 | 3 weeks | 6 weeks | Kim et al | |
| 20 | 595 | 7 | 1.5–40 | 7.75–9.0 | 3 | 6–8 weeks | NR | Shim and Abdullah | |
| 15 | 595 | 7 | 6 | 12 | 3 | 4 weeks | 1 month | Salem et al | |
| 16 (14) | 595 | 10 | 6 | 7.5 | 4 | 3–4 weeks | 1 month | Alam et al | |
| IPL | 200 (188) | ≥550 (I–II) | NR | 2.5–6.0 | 36–45 | 1–4 | NR | 2 months | Angermeier |
| 32 (28) | ≥560, ≥570 | 450×100, 150×80 | 2.4/4.0 | 27–32, 32–36 | Mean 3.6 | ≥3 weeks | Mean 3.7 months | Taub | |
| 4 | ≥515 | NR | 3 | 22–25 | 5 | 3 weeks | 1 month | Mark et al | |
| 60 | ≥550 (93%) | 8×35 | 4.3–6.5 | 25–35 | Mean 2.1 | NR | 1, 2, 4, and 12 weeks, mean 51.6 months | Schroeter et al | |
| 34 (28) | ≥560 | 34×8 | 2.4/4.0 | 24–32 | 4 | 3 weeks | 6 months | Papageorgiou et al | |
| 21 | 470–980 | NR | 13, 3×4 | 23–36 | 5 | 1 month | 1 and 3 months | Taub and Devita | |
| 5 | ≥560 | NR | NR | 29–30 | 1 | – | None | George et al | |
| 26 (25) | ≥560 | NR | 2.4/6.0 | 25 (+1n as tolerated) | 3 | 4 weeks | 4 weeks | Neuhaus et al | |
| 102 | ≥420 (w/acne), ≥530 (w/o) | 10×40 | 2.5–5 | 10–20 (w/acne), 10–30 (w/o) | Mean 7.2 | 1–3 weeks | 1–3 weeks | Kassir et al | |
| 30 | 540–950 | 640×640 | 12 | 10–12 | 3 | 3 weeks | 3 weeks | Liu et al | |
| 50 | ≥560 | NR | 6–7 | 12–16 | 4 | 3 weeks | NR | Lim et al | |
| 3 | ≥500–635 | 6.35 | 14 | 20–22 | 2, 16, and 18 | 4 weeks | 6 months | Tsunoda et al | |
| KTP | 20 (17) | 532 | 1 | 10 | 15 | 1–2 | 8 weeks | 4, 8, 12, and 24 weeks | West and Alster |
| 204 | 532 | 2 | 10–14 | 10–12 | 1–9 | 6 weeks | 6 weeks | Clark et al | |
| 5 | 532 | NR | NR | 13 | 1 | – | None | George et al | |
| 647 (452) | 532 | 1–4 | 11–12 | 11–12 | 2–3 | 6 weeks | Every 6 weeks | Becher et al | |
| Nd:YAG | 15 | 1,064 | 18 | 10 | 22 | 3 | 4 weeks | 1 month | Salem et al |
| 16 (14) | 1,064 | 8 | 0.3 | 6 | 4 | 3–4 weeks | 1 month | Alam et al |
Notes:
Double pulse with 15.0 msec delay;
double pulse with 20 msec delay.
Abbreviations: Ø, spot size; N, number of patients treated, n, number of patients who completed follow-up; λ, wavelength; NR, value not reported; T, telangiectasia; E, erythema; p, purpuragenic; np, nonpurpuragenic; I, II, III, Fitzpatrick skin types; w, with; w/o, without; Nd:YAG, neodymium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser; PDL, pulsed dye laser; IPL, intense pulsed light; KTP, potassium titanyl phosphate.
Data from studies on ablative lasers in the treatment of phymatous rosacea
| Device | n | Ø (mm) | Delivery | Power or fluence | Treated (n) | Treatment interval | Follow-up | Reference (laser manufacturer) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CO2 (λ: 10,600 nm) | 4 | 1–2 | Continuous | 10–50 W | 4 | NR | 6 months | Shapshay et al |
| 6 | 5 | NR | 10 W | 1–2 | “Few months” | 1 year | Goon et al | |
| 124 | 4–7 | Resurfacing | 20–40 W | 1 (n=115), 2 (n=8) and 4 (n=1) | NR | 3 months | Maden et al | |
| 4 | 2 | NR | 6–8 J/cm2 | NR | NR | NR | Cravo et al | |
| 9 (7) | 1.2–3.0 | Continuous | 20–30 W | 1 | – | 1 month, 1 year | Lim | |
| 1 | NR | NR | NR | 5 | 2–3 months | 7 months, 19 months | Moreira et al | |
| 1 | 6 | Continuous | 18 W | 1×6 passes | – | 3 months | Rai and Madan | |
| 541 | Variable | 50–100 Hz | 6–7 W | Variable | Variable | Variable | Campolmi et al | |
| 14 | 3 | 100 Hz | 2.5–10 W | 1×4–6 passes | – | 3 years | Carradino et al | |
| 3 | 15 | Fractionated, 20%–50% | 40–70 mJ/pulse | 1×4 passes | – | 3 months | Singh et al | |
| 22 | 0.1 | Continuous | 7.5–10 W | 1 | – | 3–18 months | Lazzeri et al | |
| 5 | NR | Fractionated 70% density | 70 mJ | 1×16–18 passes | – | 1, 4, and 6 weeks | Serowka et al | |
| 24 | NR | 50–80, then 10 Hz | 5–25, then 1 W | 2–6 | 3 weeks | 3, 6, and 12 months | Bassi et al | |
| Er:YAG (λ: 2,940 nm) | 6 | 5 | 10 Hz | 1.2 J | 1× ≤10 passes | NR | 1–2 years | Orenstein et al |
| 6 | 5 | NR | 1.2 J | 1–2 | “Few months” | 1 year | Goon et al | |
| 6 | 3 | Spot and scanner | 25 J/cm2 | 1×4 passes | – | 7, 21, 45, 90 days | Fincher and Gladstone |
Notes:
Double pulse with 15.0 msec delay between first and second pulses.
Abbreviations: Ø, spot size; n, number of patients treated; λ, wavelength; NR, value not reported; Er:YAG, erbium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet.
Figure 8Before (A) and immediately after (B) continuous wave fully ablative carbon dioxide laser treatment, and 2 weeks following (C) treatment for metaphyma (enlargement of sebaceous glands on the forehead).
Notes: Dramatic improvement without any sequelae is seen in the areas of concern for this patient. Similar results are seen with rhinophyma using comparable methods.