Phototherapy for the treatment of cutaneous graft‐versus‐host disease: A systematic review

• Published in: Photodermatology, photoimmunology & photomedicine photoimmunology & photomedicine, 2024-09, Vol.40 (5), p.e12997-n/a
• Main Authors: Fachler‐Sharp, Tahel, Kobal, Inbar, Sheffer‐Levi, Sivan, Cohen, Adiel, Hassidim, Ayal, Molho‐Pessach, Vered, Shreberk‐Hassidim, Rony
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Graft vs Host Disease - therapy; graft‐versus‐host disease; Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation - adverse effects; Humans; narrow‐band UVB; Phototherapy; psoralen UVA; PUVA Therapy; Skin Diseases - therapy; ultraviolet A1
• ISSN: 0905-4383; 1600-0781; 1600-0781
• DOI: 10.1111/phpp.12997

Background Cutaneous graft‐versus‐host disease (GVHD) is a common complication of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Phototherapy has been used to treat cutaneous GVHD, but data on its safety and efficacy are sparse. Aim Review the current medical literature regarding the efficacy, dosing, and safety of various types of phototherapies for the treatment of cutaneous GVHD. Methods A systematic review of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials databases was performed. Publications were screened according to the PRISMA guidelines. Exclusion criteria comprised case reports and case series reporting less than five patients, review articles, and articles not published in English. Results A total of 28/1304 (2.5%) studies were included. Fifteen studies (n = 267 patients) focused on psoralen and ultraviolet (UV) A (PUVA), in which 65.5% of patients received concomitantly other systemic treatments. The response rate was 89.9%, with a mean of 33.2 treatments. Adverse events were recorded in 54% but were mainly mild. Eight studies, encompassing 95 patients, focused on narrow‐band (NB) UVB. A response was observed in 94%, with a mean number of 26 treatments and 8.6% adverse effects. UVA1 was reported in six studies (n = 132 patients). A response was recorded in 89.3% with a mean of 26.2 treatments. Adverse events were noted in 70.1%, with a discontinuation rate of 10.9%. It should be noted that adverse events were recorded during the follow‐up period of the studies, which varied significantly, ranging from no follow‐up to 31 months. Conclusions Current data regarding the use of phototherapy for the treatment of cutaneous GVHD are based on retrospective studies and case series. The present report advocates the use of one of the three modalities of phototherapy as an effective and safe adjunctive treatment for cutaneous GVHD, especially NB UVB phototherapy.