red light for rosaacea?

[orangehrzn]

You have to read between the lines and it's better to read the full article instead of only the abstract - some marketing pitches have the bad habbit of eggagerating the article results to the point it becomes a lie or attaching results that aren't in the article (see below for an example). In general a great 'improvement' in some numerical parameter like 'skin texture' may not translate in easily discernible visual improvement. Below are my comments organized by topic:

FDA clearance for Omnilux:
Yes it was cleared for marketing, yet it doesn't mean it was subjected to rigorous FDA trial studies. If you go to fda.gov and search for 'omnilux' you will see all the treatment heads were cleared based on 'predicate devices' - devices having the same way of operation (LED's) that are known to be safe. FDA clearance does not mean Omnilux is more effective than any of those. In the field of medical 'lasers', FDA is more concerned of safety than efficacy and tries not to impede free marketing hence no rigorous tests required unless the device is potentially dangerous. The clearance simply means Omnilux is safe to use, it is not an FDA confirmation of its particular effectiveness.

Omnilux for acne:
The David Goldberg presentation almost suggests that Omnilux invented the Blue+Red protocol for acne - you know 'first were blue only light studies but then Omnilux came and combined with red'. That is not true, I know an article well before Omnilux [Papageorgio et al, "Phototherapy with blue (415 nm) and red (660 nm) light in the treatment of acne vulgaris", British Journal of Dermatology 2000; 142: 973-978]. The fluences in that very successfull study were 4.23 mW/cm^2 (415nm blue) and 2.67 mW/cm^2(660nm red) simultaneously for 15 mins daily, for 12 weeks. The Omnilux protocol is found in [Goldberg and Russel, "Combination blue (415 nm) and red (633 nm) LED phototherapy in the treatment of mild to severe acne vulgaris", Journal of Cosmetic and Laser Therapy. 2006; 8: 71–75] and is two 20mins treatments/week, one at 40 mW/cm^2 (415nm blue) and one at 80 mW/cm^2 (633nm red) for a total of 4 weeks (8 total treatments). The results are similar and note although the light intensity in Omnilux is 10-30 times higher the results aren't better. Now a course of Omnilux acne treatment costs about $1000 according to the questions after one of the presentations it doesn't cure acne so often repeating course may be necessary. That is a little too expensive for me when a low dose Accutane that will resolve not only acne but also normalize oiliness 10mg/day without side effects except dry lips will cost $400 /year bought outside USA. In fact, in order to get a blue light acne therapy, all you have to do is buy a deep blue diode lamp that will easily achieve the light intensity in the first study but not in the Omnilux protocol. It's gonna work anyways, and here you are saving yourself a couple of thousands /year.

Omnilux for reduction of pore size and oiliness:
Many of the presentations cite the 2006 Goldberg and Russel study (Blue+Red for acne) above claiming amongst other things 'reduction in pore size and 50% reduction in sebum'. I am VERY interested in such claims so I got the actual article and it does NOT mention pores or sebut at all - if such an effect was found, why was it not reported in the paper??? Another study of blue-only light [Tremblay et al, "Light-emitting diode 415 nm in the treatment of inflammatory acne: An open-label, multicentric, pilot investigation", Journal of Cosmetic and Laser Therapy. 2006; 8: 31–33] says that "... significant number of patients reported a decrease in skin oiliness or seborrhea, as well as a perceived decrease in pore size" but personally I don't buy anecdotal reports at all - many people will claim Retin-A reduces oiliness when I know from personal experience and from people using it for years, it doesn't. The clearest proof that red-only light does NOT significantly reduce pores is in one of the studies cited in the presentations [Lanigan et al, "A single-blinded randomised controlled study to determine the efficacy of Omnilux Revive facial treatment in skin rejuvenation", Lasers in Medical Science (2005) 20: 6–10]. They show on Fig. 3 a set of before pics and corresponding after pics after the standard 8 treatments (2/week) of Omnilux Revive head. The first and third subject clearly show pores on the before pics and the same pores on the after pics, I don't see any difference in pores, other than difference in lighting conditions. The second subject doesn't show pores on before/after pics. The pics are labeled 'changes in skin texture' which clearly showed to me that their 'change in texture' does not mean reduction of pore size. Other studies report 'improvement of texture' but again anyone can define some sensitive parameter and claim '50% improvement' when in reality the actual improvement is sublte and hardly noticeable.

Omnilux for fine lines around the eyes:
I find there is substantial evidence in the articles that red light stimulates cell metabolism, fibroblasts and collagen deposition. How much that translates in visible rejuvenation results is another question. Many articles define numerical parameters measured by profilometry or scales of photodamage to quantify the change which always sounds impressive 'about 50% improvement'. It is not clear how those parameters translate in actual rejuvenation. The expected results will be more dramatic for older people since their fibroblasts are more in 'sleeping mode' and the two impressive marketing pics of results are indeed of man and woman above the age of 45. David Goldberg said though in one of his presentations that one should not expect necessarily the same result with all patients. In one of his studies presented at some meeting, he said there was 'a subtle but definitive improvement in fine rhytides(wrinkles), skin texture and color'. Well a 'subtle' result for the price of $1000? Also the presentations say practitioners use Botox in conjunction with red light Omnilux. Now, apparently the red light results on wrinkles are not that dramatic and botox comes to rescue. That the softening of the wrinkles is 'subtle' is corroborated by the above sited study [Lanigan et al, "A single-blinded randomised controlled study to determine the efficacy of Omnilux Revive facial treatment in skin rejuvenation", Lasers in Medical Science (2005) 20: 6–10]:

[sdguy]

I certainly don't think it's a miracle cure but, like you, I do believe it's beneficial for the skin. I'd like to get the benefits of overall healthier skin and healing to help with any inflammation from topicals or other environmental factors. I'm not interested in spending the money on a machine or treatments, which is why your use of the LED bulb is interesting to me. I'm just trying to figure out if the efficacy is there with a lower power bulb vs the Omnilux (or other) treatments. I'm guessing there are higher output bulbs available, but you could always use 2 separate bulbs, or line the inside of the lamp cover with aluminum foil.

Another thing that's of interest is the reduced healing times shown in a few of the laser and/or chemical peels presented by various doctors. I may be doing one of these this year and found the claims and photos to be fairly compelling.

I agree that the pulsing sounds a little scammy and the Gentle Waves treatment times are miniscule next to the Omnilux.

Does your skin feel any better since beginning treatment? Less irritated? Less acne?

[orangehrzn]

I think the reduced healing times are true but that doesn't translate directly to rejuvenation capabilities, neither is the 'skin cancer treatment'. Both are true but Omnilux really makes it sound like the old tired marketing pitch 'yeah we found this thing that can speed up wound healing, it can even cure skin cancer, HENCE it must be awesome for rejuvenation' - yeah right.

I simply don't detect any difference between treated and untreated sides. I can see though how one can fool himself into wishful thinking if that wasn't a split face test - the fact the two sides simply look the same under the same lighting simply cancels out the fantasies and at this time I can't report any effect on capillaries or enlarged pores, nor on faint lines below the eyes.

[Twickle Purple]

I've posted but my posts were removed, perhaps posting a link to another forum is not permissible so I won't include it this time. Anyway there are many discussions found on the rosacea forum on the different types of units available. A good number of people have tried LLLT and have posted their comments. Folks here may find reading those posts beneficial.

[NickJeter]

a derm told me omnilux red led is bad for rosacea because it grows new blood vessel and increase facial blood flow.
he say you want to the the opposite when treating roscaea

[Twickle Purple]

Then you should avoid it.

I think you just posted the same thing on the rosacea forum as "Mills" right? I answered there:

[NickJeter]

mills?

[Twickle Purple]

That's all you take from the post?

[NickJeter]

twickle you make no sense on this topic

[Twickle Purple]

[NickJeter]

nick, not mills. get my name right


Here is an abstract that shows blue light reduces EDEMA. there are others if you took the time to look that show it reduces il-1a. whic his invovled in inflammation



i called omnilux and they red light grows new blood vessels and rosacea patient should avoid ,sicne they will eventiually dilate and break and leak









: Basic science research has show that micro inflammation is one of the main causes of collagen degradation inaging skin (1 , 2 ) . Micro inflammation iscreated by adverse conditions such as pollution and the UV spectrum of the sun light. Aging inflammatory skin is also deprived from adequate micro circulation of blood in capillaries as well as lymphatic drainage. The reduction of pro inflammatory cytokines as well as the enhancement ofblood circulation and lymphatic drainagewhich promotes regeneration processes is avital missing step in many anti aging andskin rejuvenation protocols. In addition to theinherent restoration of cellular vitality, the effectiveness of microdermabrasion, vitamin C and Lipoic acid are also enhanced by improved circulation. It has recently been shown that continuous non thermal narrow band blue (405-420nm) light at power levels up to 100 milliwatts / cm2reduces micro inflammation (3). It has also been shown that non thermal continuous near infrared light at 850-890 nm enhances blood and lymphatic circulation by releasing the neurotransmitter Nitric Oxide ( NO ) from blood vessels into the smoothvessel surrounding muscles (4). The iClearXL and Clear100 XL (Curelight Ltd.) are multi applications dual wavelengths Blue/ Near Infrared light sources whichprovide effective hands free treatments of aging skin in combination with traditionalschedules. The Anti inflammatory effect ofthe blue light decreasestissue edema and dermal micro-inflammation stimulating collagen remodeling.Materials and methods: We have utilized theiClearXL on numerous patients in combination with mechanical dermabrasion and vitamin C,followed by daily maintenance with Lipoic acid. The iClearXL illumination dose was administered for 20 minutes in both blue (405 -420 nm) and near infrared (850-890 nm). Power level was 25 milliwatts / cm2 at bothwavelengths. Skin temperature was measuredand found to increase by 2 degrees centigrade.One patient was treated on half face only for duration of 6 weeks, once a week (figure 1). Figure 1: Facial photorejuvenation following 5 treatments. Left:fine wrinkles before; Right: after. Note the smoothing of finewrinkles and the associated computerized profilometry.© Curelight Ltd. 2004 . Application note 0025XL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 2
2Pictures were taken before each session. The depth of fine wrinkles was evaluatedwith the aid of image analysis software. Treatment protocol:Numerous conventionalanti aging andskinrejuvenation protocols are available. Wehave selected a widely accepted and effective protocol which is based on the useof vitamin C (strong and efficient anti oxidant) during the treatment and daily useof Lipoic acid (8%) and Retin A between the treatments. The treatment steps and therational for each step are presented in table1. It must be emphasized that the blue/near infrared light dose should be administeredbefore the application of the vitamin C andnot after. The 2 degrees centigradetemperature rise of the skin enhances the skin penetration of vitamin C. The number of treatment sessions was 8, once a week. Werecommend the addition of blue/infrared light to any future anti aging session. Results: Figure 1 shows the smoothing offine wrinkle around the eyes after 5treatments. Patients felt highly comfortableduring and after the illumination session andwere not exposed to any skin burning risk associated with pulsed high energy sources. As seen in figure 2, pores as well as pigmentedspots were considerably improved. References: 1. P.U.Giacomoni, G Rein , “ A mechanism model for aging of human skin “ , Micron , 35 :2004 , 179-1842. A Shalita et al , “ Anti inflammatoryproperties of narrow band blue light” , Society of Investigative Dermatology annualMeeting , May 20003 . Lon R Horwitz et al , “ Augmentation ofWound Healing Using monochromatic InfraredEnergy “ , Advances of Wound care, 1999; 12: 35-41 Figure 2 : Facial photorejuvenation following 5 treatments .Left : untreated side . Right :after 5 treatments. Table 1Skin Rejuvenation : Typical Anti Aging ProtocolStep Procedure Rational # 1 Topical Glycolic acid 10-30%for a few seconds Removes dead keratin cells# 2 Microdermabrasion Further removes Keratin cells # 3 Application of humidifying lotion with Phospholipids Restores skin humidity. # 4 Application of blue& infrared light on both side of the face for 20 minutes from a distance of 20 cm from the face.Enhanced blood & lymphatic circulation # 5 Application of vitamin C Major anti oxidant. Better skin permeability afteriClearXL illumination. Home daily schedule: a) Retin A (Applied at night)b) Lipoic acid 5%. (Very effective anti oxidant).Reduced pore sizeTightening effect & diminished fine wrinkles Revitalized skincolor with brighter, diminished solar lentigines © Curelight Ltd. 2004 . Application note 0025XL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 3
3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 4
4