Commentary

With increasing reports of terbinafine resistance, how has your strategy for treating dermatophyte onychomycosis evolved?

DR. LIPNER: Most cases of onychomycosis are not resistant to terbinafine, so for a patient newly diagnosed with onychomycosis, my approach involves evaluating the severity of disease, number of nails affected, comorbid conditions, and concomitant medications and then discussing the risks and benefits of oral vs topical treatment. If a patient’s onychomycosis previously did not resolve with oral terbinafine, I would test for terbinafine resistance. If positive, I would treat with itraconazole for more severe cases and efinaconazole for mild to moderate cases.

Are there any new systemic or topical antifungals for onychomycosis that dermatologists should be aware of?

DR. LIPNER: There have been no new US Food and Drug Administration–approved antifungals for onychomycosis since 2014 (efinaconazole and tavaborole). For most patients, our current antifungals generally have good efficacy. For treatment failures, I would recommend reconfirming the diagnosis and testing for terbinafine resistance.

When do you choose oral antifungal therapy vs topical/combination therapy?

DR. LIPNER: almost never prescribe combination antifungal therapy because monotherapy alone is usually effective, and there is no obvious benefit to combination therapy. If treatment is working (or not working), it is hard to know which agent (if any) is effective. The one time I would use combination therapy (eg, oral terbinafine and topical efinaconazole) would be if the patient has distal lateral subungual onychomycosis and a dermatophytoma. Oral terbinafine would generally be most effective for distal lateral subungual onychomycosis, and topical efinaconazole would likely be most effective for dermatophytoma.

What is the role of adjunctive therapies in onychomycosis?

DR. LIPNER: Debridement can be effective for patients with very thick nails, combined with oral or topical antifungals. Nail avulsion generally is not helpful and should be avoided because it causes permanent shortening of the nail bed. Devices (eg, lasers, photodynamic therapy) are not subject to the same stringent endpoints as medication-based approvals. Because studies to date are small and have different efficacy endpoints, I do not use devices for treatment of onychomycosis.

How do you counsel patients about expectations and timelines for onychomycosis therapy and cure vs improvement?

DR. LIPNER: Oral treatments for toenail onychomycosis are generally given for 3-month courses, but patients should be counseled that the nail could take up to 12 to 18 months to fully grow out and look normal. If patients also have mechanical nail dystrophy, the fungus may be cured with antifungal therapy, but the nail may look better but not perfect, so it is important to manage long-term expectations.

With increasing reports of terbinafine resistance, how has your strategy for treating dermatophyte onychomycosis evolved?

DR. LIPNER: Most cases of onychomycosis are not resistant to terbinafine, so for a patient newly diagnosed with onychomycosis, my approach involves evaluating the severity of disease, number of nails affected, comorbid conditions, and concomitant medications and then discussing the risks and benefits of oral vs topical treatment. If a patient’s onychomycosis previously did not resolve with oral terbinafine, I would test for terbinafine resistance. If positive, I would treat with itraconazole for more severe cases and efinaconazole for mild to moderate cases.

Are there any new systemic or topical antifungals for onychomycosis that dermatologists should be aware of?

DR. LIPNER: There have been no new US Food and Drug Administration–approved antifungals for onychomycosis since 2014 (efinaconazole and tavaborole). For most patients, our current antifungals generally have good efficacy. For treatment failures, I would recommend reconfirming the diagnosis and testing for terbinafine resistance.

When do you choose oral antifungal therapy vs topical/combination therapy?

DR. LIPNER: almost never prescribe combination antifungal therapy because monotherapy alone is usually effective, and there is no obvious benefit to combination therapy. If treatment is working (or not working), it is hard to know which agent (if any) is effective. The one time I would use combination therapy (eg, oral terbinafine and topical efinaconazole) would be if the patient has distal lateral subungual onychomycosis and a dermatophytoma. Oral terbinafine would generally be most effective for distal lateral subungual onychomycosis, and topical efinaconazole would likely be most effective for dermatophytoma.

What is the role of adjunctive therapies in onychomycosis?

DR. LIPNER: Debridement can be effective for patients with very thick nails, combined with oral or topical antifungals. Nail avulsion generally is not helpful and should be avoided because it causes permanent shortening of the nail bed. Devices (eg, lasers, photodynamic therapy) are not subject to the same stringent endpoints as medication-based approvals. Because studies to date are small and have different efficacy endpoints, I do not use devices for treatment of onychomycosis.

How do you counsel patients about expectations and timelines for onychomycosis therapy and cure vs improvement?

DR. LIPNER: Oral treatments for toenail onychomycosis are generally given for 3-month courses, but patients should be counseled that the nail could take up to 12 to 18 months to fully grow out and look normal. If patients also have mechanical nail dystrophy, the fungus may be cured with antifungal therapy, but the nail may look better but not perfect, so it is important to manage long-term expectations.

With increasing reports of terbinafine resistance, how has your strategy for treating dermatophyte onychomycosis evolved?

DR. LIPNER: Most cases of onychomycosis are not resistant to terbinafine, so for a patient newly diagnosed with onychomycosis, my approach involves evaluating the severity of disease, number of nails affected, comorbid conditions, and concomitant medications and then discussing the risks and benefits of oral vs topical treatment. If a patient’s onychomycosis previously did not resolve with oral terbinafine, I would test for terbinafine resistance. If positive, I would treat with itraconazole for more severe cases and efinaconazole for mild to moderate cases.

Are there any new systemic or topical antifungals for onychomycosis that dermatologists should be aware of?

DR. LIPNER: There have been no new US Food and Drug Administration–approved antifungals for onychomycosis since 2014 (efinaconazole and tavaborole). For most patients, our current antifungals generally have good efficacy. For treatment failures, I would recommend reconfirming the diagnosis and testing for terbinafine resistance.

When do you choose oral antifungal therapy vs topical/combination therapy?

DR. LIPNER: almost never prescribe combination antifungal therapy because monotherapy alone is usually effective, and there is no obvious benefit to combination therapy. If treatment is working (or not working), it is hard to know which agent (if any) is effective. The one time I would use combination therapy (eg, oral terbinafine and topical efinaconazole) would be if the patient has distal lateral subungual onychomycosis and a dermatophytoma. Oral terbinafine would generally be most effective for distal lateral subungual onychomycosis, and topical efinaconazole would likely be most effective for dermatophytoma.

What is the role of adjunctive therapies in onychomycosis?

DR. LIPNER: Debridement can be effective for patients with very thick nails, combined with oral or topical antifungals. Nail avulsion generally is not helpful and should be avoided because it causes permanent shortening of the nail bed. Devices (eg, lasers, photodynamic therapy) are not subject to the same stringent endpoints as medication-based approvals. Because studies to date are small and have different efficacy endpoints, I do not use devices for treatment of onychomycosis.

How do you counsel patients about expectations and timelines for onychomycosis therapy and cure vs improvement?

DR. LIPNER: Oral treatments for toenail onychomycosis are generally given for 3-month courses, but patients should be counseled that the nail could take up to 12 to 18 months to fully grow out and look normal. If patients also have mechanical nail dystrophy, the fungus may be cured with antifungal therapy, but the nail may look better but not perfect, so it is important to manage long-term expectations.

When Skin Cancer Awareness Month rolls around every May, my social media feed is inundated with posts extolling the benefits of total body skin examinations and the life-saving potential of skin cancer screenings; however, time and again the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF)—the leading authority on evidence-based public health recommendations in the United States—has found the evidence supporting skin cancer screenings to be insufficient. The USPSTF has cited a lack of high-quality studies and inadequate data to recommend screening for the general population, excluding those at elevated risk due to personal, family, or occupational history.¹ A 2019 Cochrane review went further, concluding that current evidence refutes the utility of population-based screening for melanoma.²

Despite these findings, skin cancer screenings and total body skin examinations remain popular among patients both with and without a personal or family history of cutaneous malignancy. Indeed, the anecdotal experience of dermatologists worldwide suggests an intangible benefit to screening that persists, even if robust data to support it remain elusive.

Putting aside studies that suggest these screenings help identify melanomas at earlier stages and with reduced Breslow thicknesses,³ there is a crucial benefit from face-to-face interaction between medical professionals and the public during skin cancer screening events or health fairs. This interaction has become especially important in an era when misinformation thrives online and so-called skin care “experts” with no formal training can amass tens of thousands—or even millions—of followers on social media.

So, what are the intangible benefits of the face-to-face interactions that occur naturally during skin cancer screenings? The most obvious is education. While the USPSTF may not recommend routine screening for skin cancer in the general population, it does endorse education for children, adolescents, and adults on the importance of minimizing exposure to UV radiation, particularly those with lighter skin tones.⁴ Publicly advertised skin cancer screenings at health fairs or other community events may offer an opportunity to raise awareness about sun safety and protection, including the value of peak UV avoidance, sun-protective clothing, and proper sunscreen use; these settings also serve as platforms for health care providers to counter misinformation, including concerns about sunscreen safety both for the patient and the environment, overhyped risks for vitamin D deficiency from sun avoidance, and myths about low skin cancer risk in patients with skin of color.

While the benefits of skin self-examination (SSE) remain uncertain, especially in low-risk populations, screening events provide an opportunity to educate patients on who is most likely to benefit from SSE and in whom the practice may cause more harm than good.⁵ For higher-risk individuals such as melanoma survivors or those with a strong family history, screening fairs can serve as meaningful touchpoints that reinforce the importance of sun protection and regular examinations with a health care provider. For those eager to perform SSEs, these events offer the chance to teach best ­practices—how to conduct SSEs effectively, what features to look for (eg, the ABCDE method or the ugly duckling sign), and when to seek professional care.

Finally (and importantly), skin cancer screening events provide peace of mind for patients. Reassurance from a professional about a benign skin lesion can alleviate anxiety that might otherwise lead to emergency or urgent care visits. While cellulitis and other skin infections are the most common dermatologic conditions seen in emergency settings, benign neoplasms and similar nonurgent conditions still contribute a substantial burden to urgent care systems in the United States.⁶ Outside emergency care, systems-level data support what many of us observe in practice: two of the most common reasons for referral to dermatology are benign neoplasms and epidermoid cysts, accounting for millions of visits annually.⁷ In fact, recent claims data suggest that the most common diagnosis made in US dermatology clinics in 2023 was (you guessed it!) seborrheic keratosis.⁸

What if instead of requiring a patient to wait weeks for a primary care appointment and months for a dermatology referral—all while worrying about a rapidly growing pigmented lesion and incurring costs in copays, travel, lost wages, and time away from work—we offered a fast, trustworthy, and free evaluation that meets the patient where they live, work, or socialize? An evaluation that not only eases their fears but also provides meaningful education about skin cancer prevention and screening guidelines? While precautions must of course be taken to ensure that the quality and completeness of such an examination equals that of an in-clinic evaluation, if services of this quality can be provided, public screening events may offer a simple, accessible, and valuable solution that delivers peace of mind and helps reduce unnecessary strain on emergency, primary, and specialty care networks.

When Skin Cancer Awareness Month rolls around every May, my social media feed is inundated with posts extolling the benefits of total body skin examinations and the life-saving potential of skin cancer screenings; however, time and again the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF)—the leading authority on evidence-based public health recommendations in the United States—has found the evidence supporting skin cancer screenings to be insufficient. The USPSTF has cited a lack of high-quality studies and inadequate data to recommend screening for the general population, excluding those at elevated risk due to personal, family, or occupational history.¹ A 2019 Cochrane review went further, concluding that current evidence refutes the utility of population-based screening for melanoma.²

Despite these findings, skin cancer screenings and total body skin examinations remain popular among patients both with and without a personal or family history of cutaneous malignancy. Indeed, the anecdotal experience of dermatologists worldwide suggests an intangible benefit to screening that persists, even if robust data to support it remain elusive.

Putting aside studies that suggest these screenings help identify melanomas at earlier stages and with reduced Breslow thicknesses,³ there is a crucial benefit from face-to-face interaction between medical professionals and the public during skin cancer screening events or health fairs. This interaction has become especially important in an era when misinformation thrives online and so-called skin care “experts” with no formal training can amass tens of thousands—or even millions—of followers on social media.

So, what are the intangible benefits of the face-to-face interactions that occur naturally during skin cancer screenings? The most obvious is education. While the USPSTF may not recommend routine screening for skin cancer in the general population, it does endorse education for children, adolescents, and adults on the importance of minimizing exposure to UV radiation, particularly those with lighter skin tones.⁴ Publicly advertised skin cancer screenings at health fairs or other community events may offer an opportunity to raise awareness about sun safety and protection, including the value of peak UV avoidance, sun-protective clothing, and proper sunscreen use; these settings also serve as platforms for health care providers to counter misinformation, including concerns about sunscreen safety both for the patient and the environment, overhyped risks for vitamin D deficiency from sun avoidance, and myths about low skin cancer risk in patients with skin of color.

While the benefits of skin self-examination (SSE) remain uncertain, especially in low-risk populations, screening events provide an opportunity to educate patients on who is most likely to benefit from SSE and in whom the practice may cause more harm than good.⁵ For higher-risk individuals such as melanoma survivors or those with a strong family history, screening fairs can serve as meaningful touchpoints that reinforce the importance of sun protection and regular examinations with a health care provider. For those eager to perform SSEs, these events offer the chance to teach best ­practices—how to conduct SSEs effectively, what features to look for (eg, the ABCDE method or the ugly duckling sign), and when to seek professional care.

Finally (and importantly), skin cancer screening events provide peace of mind for patients. Reassurance from a professional about a benign skin lesion can alleviate anxiety that might otherwise lead to emergency or urgent care visits. While cellulitis and other skin infections are the most common dermatologic conditions seen in emergency settings, benign neoplasms and similar nonurgent conditions still contribute a substantial burden to urgent care systems in the United States.⁶ Outside emergency care, systems-level data support what many of us observe in practice: two of the most common reasons for referral to dermatology are benign neoplasms and epidermoid cysts, accounting for millions of visits annually.⁷ In fact, recent claims data suggest that the most common diagnosis made in US dermatology clinics in 2023 was (you guessed it!) seborrheic keratosis.⁸

What if instead of requiring a patient to wait weeks for a primary care appointment and months for a dermatology referral—all while worrying about a rapidly growing pigmented lesion and incurring costs in copays, travel, lost wages, and time away from work—we offered a fast, trustworthy, and free evaluation that meets the patient where they live, work, or socialize? An evaluation that not only eases their fears but also provides meaningful education about skin cancer prevention and screening guidelines? While precautions must of course be taken to ensure that the quality and completeness of such an examination equals that of an in-clinic evaluation, if services of this quality can be provided, public screening events may offer a simple, accessible, and valuable solution that delivers peace of mind and helps reduce unnecessary strain on emergency, primary, and specialty care networks.

When Skin Cancer Awareness Month rolls around every May, my social media feed is inundated with posts extolling the benefits of total body skin examinations and the life-saving potential of skin cancer screenings; however, time and again the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF)—the leading authority on evidence-based public health recommendations in the United States—has found the evidence supporting skin cancer screenings to be insufficient. The USPSTF has cited a lack of high-quality studies and inadequate data to recommend screening for the general population, excluding those at elevated risk due to personal, family, or occupational history.¹ A 2019 Cochrane review went further, concluding that current evidence refutes the utility of population-based screening for melanoma.²

Despite these findings, skin cancer screenings and total body skin examinations remain popular among patients both with and without a personal or family history of cutaneous malignancy. Indeed, the anecdotal experience of dermatologists worldwide suggests an intangible benefit to screening that persists, even if robust data to support it remain elusive.

Putting aside studies that suggest these screenings help identify melanomas at earlier stages and with reduced Breslow thicknesses,³ there is a crucial benefit from face-to-face interaction between medical professionals and the public during skin cancer screening events or health fairs. This interaction has become especially important in an era when misinformation thrives online and so-called skin care “experts” with no formal training can amass tens of thousands—or even millions—of followers on social media.

So, what are the intangible benefits of the face-to-face interactions that occur naturally during skin cancer screenings? The most obvious is education. While the USPSTF may not recommend routine screening for skin cancer in the general population, it does endorse education for children, adolescents, and adults on the importance of minimizing exposure to UV radiation, particularly those with lighter skin tones.⁴ Publicly advertised skin cancer screenings at health fairs or other community events may offer an opportunity to raise awareness about sun safety and protection, including the value of peak UV avoidance, sun-protective clothing, and proper sunscreen use; these settings also serve as platforms for health care providers to counter misinformation, including concerns about sunscreen safety both for the patient and the environment, overhyped risks for vitamin D deficiency from sun avoidance, and myths about low skin cancer risk in patients with skin of color.

While the benefits of skin self-examination (SSE) remain uncertain, especially in low-risk populations, screening events provide an opportunity to educate patients on who is most likely to benefit from SSE and in whom the practice may cause more harm than good.⁵ For higher-risk individuals such as melanoma survivors or those with a strong family history, screening fairs can serve as meaningful touchpoints that reinforce the importance of sun protection and regular examinations with a health care provider. For those eager to perform SSEs, these events offer the chance to teach best ­practices—how to conduct SSEs effectively, what features to look for (eg, the ABCDE method or the ugly duckling sign), and when to seek professional care.

Finally (and importantly), skin cancer screening events provide peace of mind for patients. Reassurance from a professional about a benign skin lesion can alleviate anxiety that might otherwise lead to emergency or urgent care visits. While cellulitis and other skin infections are the most common dermatologic conditions seen in emergency settings, benign neoplasms and similar nonurgent conditions still contribute a substantial burden to urgent care systems in the United States.⁶ Outside emergency care, systems-level data support what many of us observe in practice: two of the most common reasons for referral to dermatology are benign neoplasms and epidermoid cysts, accounting for millions of visits annually.⁷ In fact, recent claims data suggest that the most common diagnosis made in US dermatology clinics in 2023 was (you guessed it!) seborrheic keratosis.⁸

What if instead of requiring a patient to wait weeks for a primary care appointment and months for a dermatology referral—all while worrying about a rapidly growing pigmented lesion and incurring costs in copays, travel, lost wages, and time away from work—we offered a fast, trustworthy, and free evaluation that meets the patient where they live, work, or socialize? An evaluation that not only eases their fears but also provides meaningful education about skin cancer prevention and screening guidelines? While precautions must of course be taken to ensure that the quality and completeness of such an examination equals that of an in-clinic evaluation, if services of this quality can be provided, public screening events may offer a simple, accessible, and valuable solution that delivers peace of mind and helps reduce unnecessary strain on emergency, primary, and specialty care networks.

What clinical signs suggest antimicrobial resistance is affecting acne treatment response, and how can dermatologists identify them early? 

DR. ROSAMILIA: Antibiotic resistance is a difficult phenomenon to define clinically for acne due to many pathogenic contributors, namely the increase in sebum production stoked by hormonal changes, which further provokes Cutibacterium acnes biofilms, follicular plugs, and various inflammatory cascades. The sequence and primacy of these steps are enigmatic in each patient, therefore the role and extent of true antimicrobial therapy are debatable. Acne is more complex than other conditions that utilize antimicrobials, such as tinea corporis. In acne, lack of treatment response may be due to various factors, including long-term adherence challenges (such as inconsistent home dosing and trending complex over-the-counter [OTC] regimens), hormonal fluctuation, and confounders such as gram-negative or pityrosporum folliculitis. Therefore, determining if resistant bacteria are “causal” in acne recalcitrance or exacerbation is vague. In older patients (or younger patients with chronic conditions), proof of bacterial resistance from wound, pulmonary, or gastrointestinal studies might be available, but a typical acne patient would not present with these data. 

Do you routinely rotate patients off oral antibiotics after a fixed treatment period, or is it symptom based? How do you balance the risk for disease recurrence with resistance concerns? 

DR. ROSAMILIA: For my patients, the typical “triple threat” for moderate acne—oral antibiotics, topical benzoyl peroxide, and topical retinoids—still is tried and true. I typically prescribe 6 weeks of low-dose antibiotic therapy (doxycycline 50 mg daily) and arrange a telemedicine visit at 4 to 6 weeks to assess progress and adherence. Subsequently, I might substitute topical for oral antibiotics, with long-term plans to discontinue all antibiotics. In females, I might add spironolactone and/or oral contraceptive pills, and for recalcitrant or progressive acne, I would discuss isotretinoin. If the patient’s acne is under good control without antibiotics but they still experience intermittent deeper papules, I consider adding burst therapy of low-dose doxycycline for 1 week as needed, or for instance, during sports seasons. I try to maintain the lowest possible dosage of doxycycline while toeing the line between short-term antibacterial and longer-term anti-inflammatory control. In fact, I typically recommend that patients take it with their morning meal to absorb slightly less than the full 50-mg dosage, mitigate adverse effects, and increase adherence. All of these regimens include a benzoyl peroxide wash for its many anti-acne properties and in the context of this discussion to mitigate C acnes on acne-prone skin without creating antibiotic resistance. 

Do you see a future for point-of-care microbiome or resistance testing in acne management? 

DR. ROSAMILIA: I think we should be receptive to the evolution of these tests, and depending on the patient’s insurance coverage, efficient collection methods, and applicability to all patients, we someday may approach antimicrobial pharmacotherapy in a more personalized way. The microbiome is a broad topic with protean approaches to testing and prebiotic/probiotic supplementation, so openminded but cautious and well-studied utilization is key. 

What language do you find effective when setting expectations for acne treatment that avoids overreliance on antibiotics? 

DR. ROSAMILIA: I find it important to first determine the patient’s prior therapies. Many patients with acne present to dermatology after taking a full dosage of various antibiotics for broad amounts of time, and they may have experienced acne exacerbation (or at least perception of such) when the refills ran out. Also, I ask them to outline their past and current OTC regimens, which provides context for where and how the patient gets their information and advice. I like providing the patient’s next steps in written form, even telling them to tape the instructions to their bathroom mirror. It is just as vital to take time at the first office visit to explain the expected time to improvement and why acne is a multifactorial condition for which antibiotics are only part of the approach with benzoyl peroxide and retinoids. 

What are your top practical tips for incoming dermatologists to practice antibiotic stewardship in acne management? 

DR. ROSAMILIA: The American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) guidelines recommend 3 to 4 months as the maximum threshold for systemic antibiotics for moderate to severe acne, with tetracyclines having the best evidence for efficacy and safety. The AAD recommends never utilizing these as monotherapy and always including concomitant benzoyl peroxide to avoid bacterial resistance and topicals such as retinoids to provide a bridge to a maintenance phase without antibiotics. Starting there gives trainees structure within which to build their own acne management approach and style for their patient population. Some dermatologists might prescribe middle to high antibiotic dosages at first followed by a taper or initiate low antibiotic dosages with a standard 3- to 4-month follow-up, or a bit of a hybrid of these, as outlined in my approach. As mentioned, standardized testing for resistance to guide our dosing is not mainstream. There are countless ways to apply these guardrails, consider a place for hormonal or future isotretinoin therapy, and include the many varieties of OTC and prescription acne topicals to round out a personalized regimen for each patient based on their schedule, medication intolerances, skin type, fertility plans, and lifestyle. 

What’s the single most impactful change a busy dermatology clinic could make right now to reduce antibiotic overuse in acne care? 

DR. ROSAMILIA: I think telemedicine or in-person check-ins at the 1- or 2-month mark are vital to the assessment of the patient’s and/or family’s understanding of the treatment schedule, their ability to procure the prescription and OTC products successfully, and their consistency in using them. This is a good opportunity to remind them that our goal is to see true acne improvement; take fewer medications, not more; and create a reality where their acne regimen is intuitive and safe.

What clinical signs suggest antimicrobial resistance is affecting acne treatment response, and how can dermatologists identify them early? 

DR. ROSAMILIA: Antibiotic resistance is a difficult phenomenon to define clinically for acne due to many pathogenic contributors, namely the increase in sebum production stoked by hormonal changes, which further provokes Cutibacterium acnes biofilms, follicular plugs, and various inflammatory cascades. The sequence and primacy of these steps are enigmatic in each patient, therefore the role and extent of true antimicrobial therapy are debatable. Acne is more complex than other conditions that utilize antimicrobials, such as tinea corporis. In acne, lack of treatment response may be due to various factors, including long-term adherence challenges (such as inconsistent home dosing and trending complex over-the-counter [OTC] regimens), hormonal fluctuation, and confounders such as gram-negative or pityrosporum folliculitis. Therefore, determining if resistant bacteria are “causal” in acne recalcitrance or exacerbation is vague. In older patients (or younger patients with chronic conditions), proof of bacterial resistance from wound, pulmonary, or gastrointestinal studies might be available, but a typical acne patient would not present with these data. 

Do you routinely rotate patients off oral antibiotics after a fixed treatment period, or is it symptom based? How do you balance the risk for disease recurrence with resistance concerns? 

DR. ROSAMILIA: For my patients, the typical “triple threat” for moderate acne—oral antibiotics, topical benzoyl peroxide, and topical retinoids—still is tried and true. I typically prescribe 6 weeks of low-dose antibiotic therapy (doxycycline 50 mg daily) and arrange a telemedicine visit at 4 to 6 weeks to assess progress and adherence. Subsequently, I might substitute topical for oral antibiotics, with long-term plans to discontinue all antibiotics. In females, I might add spironolactone and/or oral contraceptive pills, and for recalcitrant or progressive acne, I would discuss isotretinoin. If the patient’s acne is under good control without antibiotics but they still experience intermittent deeper papules, I consider adding burst therapy of low-dose doxycycline for 1 week as needed, or for instance, during sports seasons. I try to maintain the lowest possible dosage of doxycycline while toeing the line between short-term antibacterial and longer-term anti-inflammatory control. In fact, I typically recommend that patients take it with their morning meal to absorb slightly less than the full 50-mg dosage, mitigate adverse effects, and increase adherence. All of these regimens include a benzoyl peroxide wash for its many anti-acne properties and in the context of this discussion to mitigate C acnes on acne-prone skin without creating antibiotic resistance. 

Do you see a future for point-of-care microbiome or resistance testing in acne management? 

DR. ROSAMILIA: I think we should be receptive to the evolution of these tests, and depending on the patient’s insurance coverage, efficient collection methods, and applicability to all patients, we someday may approach antimicrobial pharmacotherapy in a more personalized way. The microbiome is a broad topic with protean approaches to testing and prebiotic/probiotic supplementation, so openminded but cautious and well-studied utilization is key. 

What language do you find effective when setting expectations for acne treatment that avoids overreliance on antibiotics? 

DR. ROSAMILIA: I find it important to first determine the patient’s prior therapies. Many patients with acne present to dermatology after taking a full dosage of various antibiotics for broad amounts of time, and they may have experienced acne exacerbation (or at least perception of such) when the refills ran out. Also, I ask them to outline their past and current OTC regimens, which provides context for where and how the patient gets their information and advice. I like providing the patient’s next steps in written form, even telling them to tape the instructions to their bathroom mirror. It is just as vital to take time at the first office visit to explain the expected time to improvement and why acne is a multifactorial condition for which antibiotics are only part of the approach with benzoyl peroxide and retinoids. 

What are your top practical tips for incoming dermatologists to practice antibiotic stewardship in acne management? 

DR. ROSAMILIA: The American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) guidelines recommend 3 to 4 months as the maximum threshold for systemic antibiotics for moderate to severe acne, with tetracyclines having the best evidence for efficacy and safety. The AAD recommends never utilizing these as monotherapy and always including concomitant benzoyl peroxide to avoid bacterial resistance and topicals such as retinoids to provide a bridge to a maintenance phase without antibiotics. Starting there gives trainees structure within which to build their own acne management approach and style for their patient population. Some dermatologists might prescribe middle to high antibiotic dosages at first followed by a taper or initiate low antibiotic dosages with a standard 3- to 4-month follow-up, or a bit of a hybrid of these, as outlined in my approach. As mentioned, standardized testing for resistance to guide our dosing is not mainstream. There are countless ways to apply these guardrails, consider a place for hormonal or future isotretinoin therapy, and include the many varieties of OTC and prescription acne topicals to round out a personalized regimen for each patient based on their schedule, medication intolerances, skin type, fertility plans, and lifestyle. 

What’s the single most impactful change a busy dermatology clinic could make right now to reduce antibiotic overuse in acne care? 

DR. ROSAMILIA: I think telemedicine or in-person check-ins at the 1- or 2-month mark are vital to the assessment of the patient’s and/or family’s understanding of the treatment schedule, their ability to procure the prescription and OTC products successfully, and their consistency in using them. This is a good opportunity to remind them that our goal is to see true acne improvement; take fewer medications, not more; and create a reality where their acne regimen is intuitive and safe.

What clinical signs suggest antimicrobial resistance is affecting acne treatment response, and how can dermatologists identify them early? 

DR. ROSAMILIA: Antibiotic resistance is a difficult phenomenon to define clinically for acne due to many pathogenic contributors, namely the increase in sebum production stoked by hormonal changes, which further provokes Cutibacterium acnes biofilms, follicular plugs, and various inflammatory cascades. The sequence and primacy of these steps are enigmatic in each patient, therefore the role and extent of true antimicrobial therapy are debatable. Acne is more complex than other conditions that utilize antimicrobials, such as tinea corporis. In acne, lack of treatment response may be due to various factors, including long-term adherence challenges (such as inconsistent home dosing and trending complex over-the-counter [OTC] regimens), hormonal fluctuation, and confounders such as gram-negative or pityrosporum folliculitis. Therefore, determining if resistant bacteria are “causal” in acne recalcitrance or exacerbation is vague. In older patients (or younger patients with chronic conditions), proof of bacterial resistance from wound, pulmonary, or gastrointestinal studies might be available, but a typical acne patient would not present with these data. 

Do you routinely rotate patients off oral antibiotics after a fixed treatment period, or is it symptom based? How do you balance the risk for disease recurrence with resistance concerns? 

DR. ROSAMILIA: For my patients, the typical “triple threat” for moderate acne—oral antibiotics, topical benzoyl peroxide, and topical retinoids—still is tried and true. I typically prescribe 6 weeks of low-dose antibiotic therapy (doxycycline 50 mg daily) and arrange a telemedicine visit at 4 to 6 weeks to assess progress and adherence. Subsequently, I might substitute topical for oral antibiotics, with long-term plans to discontinue all antibiotics. In females, I might add spironolactone and/or oral contraceptive pills, and for recalcitrant or progressive acne, I would discuss isotretinoin. If the patient’s acne is under good control without antibiotics but they still experience intermittent deeper papules, I consider adding burst therapy of low-dose doxycycline for 1 week as needed, or for instance, during sports seasons. I try to maintain the lowest possible dosage of doxycycline while toeing the line between short-term antibacterial and longer-term anti-inflammatory control. In fact, I typically recommend that patients take it with their morning meal to absorb slightly less than the full 50-mg dosage, mitigate adverse effects, and increase adherence. All of these regimens include a benzoyl peroxide wash for its many anti-acne properties and in the context of this discussion to mitigate C acnes on acne-prone skin without creating antibiotic resistance. 

Do you see a future for point-of-care microbiome or resistance testing in acne management? 

DR. ROSAMILIA: I think we should be receptive to the evolution of these tests, and depending on the patient’s insurance coverage, efficient collection methods, and applicability to all patients, we someday may approach antimicrobial pharmacotherapy in a more personalized way. The microbiome is a broad topic with protean approaches to testing and prebiotic/probiotic supplementation, so openminded but cautious and well-studied utilization is key. 

What language do you find effective when setting expectations for acne treatment that avoids overreliance on antibiotics? 

DR. ROSAMILIA: I find it important to first determine the patient’s prior therapies. Many patients with acne present to dermatology after taking a full dosage of various antibiotics for broad amounts of time, and they may have experienced acne exacerbation (or at least perception of such) when the refills ran out. Also, I ask them to outline their past and current OTC regimens, which provides context for where and how the patient gets their information and advice. I like providing the patient’s next steps in written form, even telling them to tape the instructions to their bathroom mirror. It is just as vital to take time at the first office visit to explain the expected time to improvement and why acne is a multifactorial condition for which antibiotics are only part of the approach with benzoyl peroxide and retinoids. 

What are your top practical tips for incoming dermatologists to practice antibiotic stewardship in acne management? 

DR. ROSAMILIA: The American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) guidelines recommend 3 to 4 months as the maximum threshold for systemic antibiotics for moderate to severe acne, with tetracyclines having the best evidence for efficacy and safety. The AAD recommends never utilizing these as monotherapy and always including concomitant benzoyl peroxide to avoid bacterial resistance and topicals such as retinoids to provide a bridge to a maintenance phase without antibiotics. Starting there gives trainees structure within which to build their own acne management approach and style for their patient population. Some dermatologists might prescribe middle to high antibiotic dosages at first followed by a taper or initiate low antibiotic dosages with a standard 3- to 4-month follow-up, or a bit of a hybrid of these, as outlined in my approach. As mentioned, standardized testing for resistance to guide our dosing is not mainstream. There are countless ways to apply these guardrails, consider a place for hormonal or future isotretinoin therapy, and include the many varieties of OTC and prescription acne topicals to round out a personalized regimen for each patient based on their schedule, medication intolerances, skin type, fertility plans, and lifestyle. 

What’s the single most impactful change a busy dermatology clinic could make right now to reduce antibiotic overuse in acne care? 

DR. ROSAMILIA: I think telemedicine or in-person check-ins at the 1- or 2-month mark are vital to the assessment of the patient’s and/or family’s understanding of the treatment schedule, their ability to procure the prescription and OTC products successfully, and their consistency in using them. This is a good opportunity to remind them that our goal is to see true acne improvement; take fewer medications, not more; and create a reality where their acne regimen is intuitive and safe.

Visible light is part of the electromagnetic spectrum and is confined to a range of 400 to 700 nm. Visible light phototherapy can be delivered across various wavelengths within this spectrum, with most research focusing on blue light (BL)(400-500 nm) and red light (RL)(600-700 nm). Blue light commonly is used to treat acne as well as actinic keratosis and other inflammatory disorders,^1,2 while RL largely targets signs of skin aging and fibrosis.^2,3 Because of its shorter wavelength, the clinically meaningful skin penetration of BL reaches up to1 mm and is confined to the epidermis; in contrast, RL can access the dermal adnexa due to its penetration depth of more than 2 mm.⁴ Therapeutically, visible light can be utilized alone (eg, photobiomodulation [PBM]) or in combination with a photosensitizing agent (eg, photodynamic therapy [PDT]).^5,6

Our laboratory’s prior research has contributed to a greater understanding of the safety profile of visible light at various wavelengths.^1,3 Specifically, our work has shown that BL (417 nm [range, 412-422 nm]) and RL (633 nm [range, 627-639 nm]) demonstrated no evidence of DNA damage—via no formation of cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers and/or 6-4 photoproducts, the hallmark photolesions caused by UV exposure—in human dermal fibroblasts following visible light exposure at all fluences tested.^1,3 This evidence reinforces the safety of visible light at clinically relevant wavelengths, supporting its integration into dermatologic practice. In this editorial, we highlight the key clinical applications of PBM and PDT and outline safety considerations for visible light-based therapies in dermatologic practice.

Photobiomodulation

Photobiomodulation is a noninvasive treatment in which low-level lasers or light-emitting diodes deliver photons from a nonionizing light source to endogenous photoreceptors, primarily cytochrome C oxidase.^7-9 On the visible light spectrum, PBM primarily encompasses RL.^7-9 Photoactivation leads to production of reactive oxygen species as well as mitochondrial alterations, with resulting modulation of cellular activity.^7-9 Upregulation of cellular activity generally occurs at lower fluences (ie, energy delivered per unit area) of light, whereas higher fluences cause downregulation of cellular activity.⁵

Recent consensus guidelines, established with expert colleagues, define additional key parameters that are crucial to optimizing PBM treatment, including distance from the light source, area of the light beam, wavelength, length of treatment time, and number of treatments.⁵ Understanding the effects of different parameter combinations is essential for clinicians to select the best treatment regimen for each patient. Our laboratory has conducted National Institutes of Health–funded phase 1 and phase 2 clinical trials to determine the safety and efficacy of red-light PBM.^10-13 Additionally, we completed several pilot phase 2 clinical studies with commercially available light-emitting diode face masks using PBM technology, which demonstrated a favorable safety profile and high patient satisfaction across multiple self-reported measures.^14,15 These findings highlight PBM as a reliable and well-tolerated therapeutic approach that can be administered in clinical settings or by patients at home.

Adverse effects of PBM therapy generally are mild and transient, most commonly manifesting as slight irritation and erythema.⁵ Overall, PBM is widely regarded as safe with a favorable and nontoxic profile across treatment settings. Growing evidence supports the role of PBM in managing wound healing, acne, alopecia, and skin aging, among other dermatologic concerns.⁸

Photodynamic Therapy

Photodynamic therapy is a noninvasive procedure during which a photosensitizer—typically 5-aminolevulinic acid (5-ALA) or a derivative, methyl aminolevulinate—reacts with a light source and oxygen, resulting in reactive oxygen species.^6,16 This reaction ultimately triggers targeted cellular destruction of the intended lesional skin but with negligible effects on adjacent nonlesional tissue.⁶ The efficacy of PDT is determined by several parameters, including composition and concentration of the photosensitizer, photosensitizer incubation temperature, and incubation time with the photosensitizer. Methyl aminolevulinate is a lipophilic molecule and may promote greater skin penetration and cellular uptake than 5-ALA, which is a hydrophilic molecule.⁶

Our research further demonstrated that apoptosis increases in a dose- and temperature-dependent manner following 5-ALA exposure, both in cutaneous and mucosal squamous cell carcinoma cells and in human dermal fibroblasts.^17,18 Our mechanistic insights have clinical relevance, as evidenced by an independent pilot study demonstrating that temperature-modulated PDT significantly improved actinic keratosis lesion clearance rates (P<.0001).¹⁹ Additionally, we determined that even short periods of incubation with 5-ALA (ie, 15-30 minutes) result in statistically significant increases in apoptosis (P<.05).²⁰ Thus, these findings highlight that the choice of photosensitizing agent and the administration parameters are critical in determining PDT efficacy as well as the need to optimize clinical protocols.

Photodynamic therapy also has demonstrated general clinical and genotoxic safety, with the most common potential adverse events limited to temporary inflammation, erythema, and discomfort.²¹ A study in murine skin and human keratinocytes revealed that 5-ALA PDT had a photoprotective effect against previous irradiation with UVB (a known inducer of DNA damage) via removal of cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers.²² Thus, PDT has been recognized as a safe and effective therapeutic modality with broad applications in dermatology, including treatment of actinic keratosis and nonmelanoma skin cancers.¹⁶

Clinical Safety, Photoprotection, and Precautions

While visible light has shown substantial therapeutic potential in dermatology, there are several safety measures and precautions to be aware of. Visible light constitutes approximately 44% of the solar output; therefore, precautions against both UV and visible light are recommended for the general population.²³ Cumulative exposure to visible light has been shown to trigger melanogenesis, resulting in persistent erythema, hyperpigmentation, and uneven skin tones across all Fitzpatrick skin types.²⁴ Individuals with skin of color are more photosensitive to visible light due to increased baseline melanin levels.²⁴ Similarly, patients with pigmentary conditions such as melasma and postinflammatory hyperpigmentation may experience worsening of their dermatologic symptoms due to underlying visible light photosensitivity.²⁵

Patients undergoing PBM or PDT could benefit from visible light protection. The primary form of photoprotection against visible light is tinted sunscreen, which contains iron oxides and titanium dioxide.²⁶ Iron (III) oxide is capable of blocking nearly all visible light damage.²⁶ Use of physical barriers such as wavelength-specific sunglasses and wide-brimmed hats also is important for preventing photodamage from visible light.²⁶

Final Thoughts

Visible light has a role in the treatment of a variety of skin conditions, including actinic keratosis, nonmelanoma skin cancers, acne, wound healing, skin fibrosis, and photodamage. Photobiomodulation and PDT represent 2 noninvasive phototherapeutic options that utilize visible light to enact cellular changes necessary to improve skin health. Integrating visible light phototherapy into standard clinical practice is important for enhancing patient outcomes. Clinicians should remain mindful of the rare pigmentary risks associated with visible light therapy devices. Future research should prioritize optimization of standardized protocols and expansion of clinical indications for visible light phototherapy.

Visible light is part of the electromagnetic spectrum and is confined to a range of 400 to 700 nm. Visible light phototherapy can be delivered across various wavelengths within this spectrum, with most research focusing on blue light (BL)(400-500 nm) and red light (RL)(600-700 nm). Blue light commonly is used to treat acne as well as actinic keratosis and other inflammatory disorders,^1,2 while RL largely targets signs of skin aging and fibrosis.^2,3 Because of its shorter wavelength, the clinically meaningful skin penetration of BL reaches up to1 mm and is confined to the epidermis; in contrast, RL can access the dermal adnexa due to its penetration depth of more than 2 mm.⁴ Therapeutically, visible light can be utilized alone (eg, photobiomodulation [PBM]) or in combination with a photosensitizing agent (eg, photodynamic therapy [PDT]).^5,6

Our laboratory’s prior research has contributed to a greater understanding of the safety profile of visible light at various wavelengths.^1,3 Specifically, our work has shown that BL (417 nm [range, 412-422 nm]) and RL (633 nm [range, 627-639 nm]) demonstrated no evidence of DNA damage—via no formation of cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers and/or 6-4 photoproducts, the hallmark photolesions caused by UV exposure—in human dermal fibroblasts following visible light exposure at all fluences tested.^1,3 This evidence reinforces the safety of visible light at clinically relevant wavelengths, supporting its integration into dermatologic practice. In this editorial, we highlight the key clinical applications of PBM and PDT and outline safety considerations for visible light-based therapies in dermatologic practice.

Photobiomodulation

Photobiomodulation is a noninvasive treatment in which low-level lasers or light-emitting diodes deliver photons from a nonionizing light source to endogenous photoreceptors, primarily cytochrome C oxidase.^7-9 On the visible light spectrum, PBM primarily encompasses RL.^7-9 Photoactivation leads to production of reactive oxygen species as well as mitochondrial alterations, with resulting modulation of cellular activity.^7-9 Upregulation of cellular activity generally occurs at lower fluences (ie, energy delivered per unit area) of light, whereas higher fluences cause downregulation of cellular activity.⁵

Recent consensus guidelines, established with expert colleagues, define additional key parameters that are crucial to optimizing PBM treatment, including distance from the light source, area of the light beam, wavelength, length of treatment time, and number of treatments.⁵ Understanding the effects of different parameter combinations is essential for clinicians to select the best treatment regimen for each patient. Our laboratory has conducted National Institutes of Health–funded phase 1 and phase 2 clinical trials to determine the safety and efficacy of red-light PBM.^10-13 Additionally, we completed several pilot phase 2 clinical studies with commercially available light-emitting diode face masks using PBM technology, which demonstrated a favorable safety profile and high patient satisfaction across multiple self-reported measures.^14,15 These findings highlight PBM as a reliable and well-tolerated therapeutic approach that can be administered in clinical settings or by patients at home.

Adverse effects of PBM therapy generally are mild and transient, most commonly manifesting as slight irritation and erythema.⁵ Overall, PBM is widely regarded as safe with a favorable and nontoxic profile across treatment settings. Growing evidence supports the role of PBM in managing wound healing, acne, alopecia, and skin aging, among other dermatologic concerns.⁸

Photodynamic Therapy

Photodynamic therapy is a noninvasive procedure during which a photosensitizer—typically 5-aminolevulinic acid (5-ALA) or a derivative, methyl aminolevulinate—reacts with a light source and oxygen, resulting in reactive oxygen species.^6,16 This reaction ultimately triggers targeted cellular destruction of the intended lesional skin but with negligible effects on adjacent nonlesional tissue.⁶ The efficacy of PDT is determined by several parameters, including composition and concentration of the photosensitizer, photosensitizer incubation temperature, and incubation time with the photosensitizer. Methyl aminolevulinate is a lipophilic molecule and may promote greater skin penetration and cellular uptake than 5-ALA, which is a hydrophilic molecule.⁶

Our research further demonstrated that apoptosis increases in a dose- and temperature-dependent manner following 5-ALA exposure, both in cutaneous and mucosal squamous cell carcinoma cells and in human dermal fibroblasts.^17,18 Our mechanistic insights have clinical relevance, as evidenced by an independent pilot study demonstrating that temperature-modulated PDT significantly improved actinic keratosis lesion clearance rates (P<.0001).¹⁹ Additionally, we determined that even short periods of incubation with 5-ALA (ie, 15-30 minutes) result in statistically significant increases in apoptosis (P<.05).²⁰ Thus, these findings highlight that the choice of photosensitizing agent and the administration parameters are critical in determining PDT efficacy as well as the need to optimize clinical protocols.

Photodynamic therapy also has demonstrated general clinical and genotoxic safety, with the most common potential adverse events limited to temporary inflammation, erythema, and discomfort.²¹ A study in murine skin and human keratinocytes revealed that 5-ALA PDT had a photoprotective effect against previous irradiation with UVB (a known inducer of DNA damage) via removal of cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers.²² Thus, PDT has been recognized as a safe and effective therapeutic modality with broad applications in dermatology, including treatment of actinic keratosis and nonmelanoma skin cancers.¹⁶

Clinical Safety, Photoprotection, and Precautions

While visible light has shown substantial therapeutic potential in dermatology, there are several safety measures and precautions to be aware of. Visible light constitutes approximately 44% of the solar output; therefore, precautions against both UV and visible light are recommended for the general population.²³ Cumulative exposure to visible light has been shown to trigger melanogenesis, resulting in persistent erythema, hyperpigmentation, and uneven skin tones across all Fitzpatrick skin types.²⁴ Individuals with skin of color are more photosensitive to visible light due to increased baseline melanin levels.²⁴ Similarly, patients with pigmentary conditions such as melasma and postinflammatory hyperpigmentation may experience worsening of their dermatologic symptoms due to underlying visible light photosensitivity.²⁵

Patients undergoing PBM or PDT could benefit from visible light protection. The primary form of photoprotection against visible light is tinted sunscreen, which contains iron oxides and titanium dioxide.²⁶ Iron (III) oxide is capable of blocking nearly all visible light damage.²⁶ Use of physical barriers such as wavelength-specific sunglasses and wide-brimmed hats also is important for preventing photodamage from visible light.²⁶

Final Thoughts

Visible light has a role in the treatment of a variety of skin conditions, including actinic keratosis, nonmelanoma skin cancers, acne, wound healing, skin fibrosis, and photodamage. Photobiomodulation and PDT represent 2 noninvasive phototherapeutic options that utilize visible light to enact cellular changes necessary to improve skin health. Integrating visible light phototherapy into standard clinical practice is important for enhancing patient outcomes. Clinicians should remain mindful of the rare pigmentary risks associated with visible light therapy devices. Future research should prioritize optimization of standardized protocols and expansion of clinical indications for visible light phototherapy.

Visible light is part of the electromagnetic spectrum and is confined to a range of 400 to 700 nm. Visible light phototherapy can be delivered across various wavelengths within this spectrum, with most research focusing on blue light (BL)(400-500 nm) and red light (RL)(600-700 nm). Blue light commonly is used to treat acne as well as actinic keratosis and other inflammatory disorders,^1,2 while RL largely targets signs of skin aging and fibrosis.^2,3 Because of its shorter wavelength, the clinically meaningful skin penetration of BL reaches up to1 mm and is confined to the epidermis; in contrast, RL can access the dermal adnexa due to its penetration depth of more than 2 mm.⁴ Therapeutically, visible light can be utilized alone (eg, photobiomodulation [PBM]) or in combination with a photosensitizing agent (eg, photodynamic therapy [PDT]).^5,6

Our laboratory’s prior research has contributed to a greater understanding of the safety profile of visible light at various wavelengths.^1,3 Specifically, our work has shown that BL (417 nm [range, 412-422 nm]) and RL (633 nm [range, 627-639 nm]) demonstrated no evidence of DNA damage—via no formation of cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers and/or 6-4 photoproducts, the hallmark photolesions caused by UV exposure—in human dermal fibroblasts following visible light exposure at all fluences tested.^1,3 This evidence reinforces the safety of visible light at clinically relevant wavelengths, supporting its integration into dermatologic practice. In this editorial, we highlight the key clinical applications of PBM and PDT and outline safety considerations for visible light-based therapies in dermatologic practice.

Photobiomodulation

Photobiomodulation is a noninvasive treatment in which low-level lasers or light-emitting diodes deliver photons from a nonionizing light source to endogenous photoreceptors, primarily cytochrome C oxidase.^7-9 On the visible light spectrum, PBM primarily encompasses RL.^7-9 Photoactivation leads to production of reactive oxygen species as well as mitochondrial alterations, with resulting modulation of cellular activity.^7-9 Upregulation of cellular activity generally occurs at lower fluences (ie, energy delivered per unit area) of light, whereas higher fluences cause downregulation of cellular activity.⁵

Recent consensus guidelines, established with expert colleagues, define additional key parameters that are crucial to optimizing PBM treatment, including distance from the light source, area of the light beam, wavelength, length of treatment time, and number of treatments.⁵ Understanding the effects of different parameter combinations is essential for clinicians to select the best treatment regimen for each patient. Our laboratory has conducted National Institutes of Health–funded phase 1 and phase 2 clinical trials to determine the safety and efficacy of red-light PBM.^10-13 Additionally, we completed several pilot phase 2 clinical studies with commercially available light-emitting diode face masks using PBM technology, which demonstrated a favorable safety profile and high patient satisfaction across multiple self-reported measures.^14,15 These findings highlight PBM as a reliable and well-tolerated therapeutic approach that can be administered in clinical settings or by patients at home.

Adverse effects of PBM therapy generally are mild and transient, most commonly manifesting as slight irritation and erythema.⁵ Overall, PBM is widely regarded as safe with a favorable and nontoxic profile across treatment settings. Growing evidence supports the role of PBM in managing wound healing, acne, alopecia, and skin aging, among other dermatologic concerns.⁸

Photodynamic Therapy

Photodynamic therapy is a noninvasive procedure during which a photosensitizer—typically 5-aminolevulinic acid (5-ALA) or a derivative, methyl aminolevulinate—reacts with a light source and oxygen, resulting in reactive oxygen species.^6,16 This reaction ultimately triggers targeted cellular destruction of the intended lesional skin but with negligible effects on adjacent nonlesional tissue.⁶ The efficacy of PDT is determined by several parameters, including composition and concentration of the photosensitizer, photosensitizer incubation temperature, and incubation time with the photosensitizer. Methyl aminolevulinate is a lipophilic molecule and may promote greater skin penetration and cellular uptake than 5-ALA, which is a hydrophilic molecule.⁶

Our research further demonstrated that apoptosis increases in a dose- and temperature-dependent manner following 5-ALA exposure, both in cutaneous and mucosal squamous cell carcinoma cells and in human dermal fibroblasts.^17,18 Our mechanistic insights have clinical relevance, as evidenced by an independent pilot study demonstrating that temperature-modulated PDT significantly improved actinic keratosis lesion clearance rates (P<.0001).¹⁹ Additionally, we determined that even short periods of incubation with 5-ALA (ie, 15-30 minutes) result in statistically significant increases in apoptosis (P<.05).²⁰ Thus, these findings highlight that the choice of photosensitizing agent and the administration parameters are critical in determining PDT efficacy as well as the need to optimize clinical protocols.

Photodynamic therapy also has demonstrated general clinical and genotoxic safety, with the most common potential adverse events limited to temporary inflammation, erythema, and discomfort.²¹ A study in murine skin and human keratinocytes revealed that 5-ALA PDT had a photoprotective effect against previous irradiation with UVB (a known inducer of DNA damage) via removal of cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers.²² Thus, PDT has been recognized as a safe and effective therapeutic modality with broad applications in dermatology, including treatment of actinic keratosis and nonmelanoma skin cancers.¹⁶

Clinical Safety, Photoprotection, and Precautions

While visible light has shown substantial therapeutic potential in dermatology, there are several safety measures and precautions to be aware of. Visible light constitutes approximately 44% of the solar output; therefore, precautions against both UV and visible light are recommended for the general population.²³ Cumulative exposure to visible light has been shown to trigger melanogenesis, resulting in persistent erythema, hyperpigmentation, and uneven skin tones across all Fitzpatrick skin types.²⁴ Individuals with skin of color are more photosensitive to visible light due to increased baseline melanin levels.²⁴ Similarly, patients with pigmentary conditions such as melasma and postinflammatory hyperpigmentation may experience worsening of their dermatologic symptoms due to underlying visible light photosensitivity.²⁵

Patients undergoing PBM or PDT could benefit from visible light protection. The primary form of photoprotection against visible light is tinted sunscreen, which contains iron oxides and titanium dioxide.²⁶ Iron (III) oxide is capable of blocking nearly all visible light damage.²⁶ Use of physical barriers such as wavelength-specific sunglasses and wide-brimmed hats also is important for preventing photodamage from visible light.²⁶

Final Thoughts

Visible light has a role in the treatment of a variety of skin conditions, including actinic keratosis, nonmelanoma skin cancers, acne, wound healing, skin fibrosis, and photodamage. Photobiomodulation and PDT represent 2 noninvasive phototherapeutic options that utilize visible light to enact cellular changes necessary to improve skin health. Integrating visible light phototherapy into standard clinical practice is important for enhancing patient outcomes. Clinicians should remain mindful of the rare pigmentary risks associated with visible light therapy devices. Future research should prioritize optimization of standardized protocols and expansion of clinical indications for visible light phototherapy.

The original four HPEER Advanced Fellowship sites were established by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Office of Academic Affiliation in 2014, and expanded in 2020 to include 8 sites and a national coordinating center with leadership shared between VA facilities in Houston and White River Junction. The VA invests heavily in training the nation’s healthcare professionals. The mission of HPEER is to develop leaders who can educate, evaluate, and innovate in Health Professions Education for the VA and the nation. All HPEER sites take part in a nationally coordinated curriculum covering topics in curriculum design, learner assessment, leadership, interprofessional education, as well as scholarship and educational research.

As part of the national HPEER curriculum covering scholarship and educational research, and in concert with Wednesday, May 14, 2025 VA Research Week 2025, HPEER organized a joint conference with the Center for Health Professions Education at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (USUHS). This interagency online event included poster sessions and oral presentations from HPEER fellows and students in USUHS certificate and graduate degree programs.

Education scholarship is broad, ranging from descriptions of curricular innovations and works in progress to advanced research using techniques drawn from psychology, sociology, anthropology, economics, and other scientific disciplines. The abstracts presented here summarize some of the work being done by HPEER fellows. Dougherty et al (Boston) described a project to create a primer outlining methodology for conducting and interpreting cost-effectiveness evaluations in the context of proposed HPE innovations. Cohen et al (Cleveland) found reduction in potentially problematic orders in the context of life-sustaining treatment following a multifaceted intervention program. Sorenson (Dublin, Georgia) reported an expanded Tai Chi program that included modifications allowing seated positions for veterans with mobility limitations. Young et al (Dublin) described an interprofessional curriculum to strengthen communication between nurses and social workers in their conversations with women veterans living in rural settings. Misedah-Robinson et al (Houston) showed that a new training program strengthened coordinators’ self-reports of preparedness and confidence in their ability to support veterans who have experienced human trafficking. Tovar et al (Salt Lake City) describe a methodology for using data from the VHA Corporate Data Warehouse to optimize schedules of HPE students assigned to VA clinical rotations. Yanez et al (San Francisco) presented initial observations of learner-centered outcomes following participation in a new multidisciplinary integrative health elective. Resto et al (West Haven) reported that implementation of self-serve kiosks increased distribution of substance use harm reduction resources beyond usual clinical care.

A second joint conference between VA HPEER and USUHS is planned for VA Research Week 2026; we look forward to the abstracts that will be produced by this new cohort of fellows, as well as to the future scholarship and contributions to the field that will be made by alumni of the HPEER Advanced Fellowship.

The original four HPEER Advanced Fellowship sites were established by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Office of Academic Affiliation in 2014, and expanded in 2020 to include 8 sites and a national coordinating center with leadership shared between VA facilities in Houston and White River Junction. The VA invests heavily in training the nation’s healthcare professionals. The mission of HPEER is to develop leaders who can educate, evaluate, and innovate in Health Professions Education for the VA and the nation. All HPEER sites take part in a nationally coordinated curriculum covering topics in curriculum design, learner assessment, leadership, interprofessional education, as well as scholarship and educational research.

As part of the national HPEER curriculum covering scholarship and educational research, and in concert with Wednesday, May 14, 2025 VA Research Week 2025, HPEER organized a joint conference with the Center for Health Professions Education at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (USUHS). This interagency online event included poster sessions and oral presentations from HPEER fellows and students in USUHS certificate and graduate degree programs.

Education scholarship is broad, ranging from descriptions of curricular innovations and works in progress to advanced research using techniques drawn from psychology, sociology, anthropology, economics, and other scientific disciplines. The abstracts presented here summarize some of the work being done by HPEER fellows. Dougherty et al (Boston) described a project to create a primer outlining methodology for conducting and interpreting cost-effectiveness evaluations in the context of proposed HPE innovations. Cohen et al (Cleveland) found reduction in potentially problematic orders in the context of life-sustaining treatment following a multifaceted intervention program. Sorenson (Dublin, Georgia) reported an expanded Tai Chi program that included modifications allowing seated positions for veterans with mobility limitations. Young et al (Dublin) described an interprofessional curriculum to strengthen communication between nurses and social workers in their conversations with women veterans living in rural settings. Misedah-Robinson et al (Houston) showed that a new training program strengthened coordinators’ self-reports of preparedness and confidence in their ability to support veterans who have experienced human trafficking. Tovar et al (Salt Lake City) describe a methodology for using data from the VHA Corporate Data Warehouse to optimize schedules of HPE students assigned to VA clinical rotations. Yanez et al (San Francisco) presented initial observations of learner-centered outcomes following participation in a new multidisciplinary integrative health elective. Resto et al (West Haven) reported that implementation of self-serve kiosks increased distribution of substance use harm reduction resources beyond usual clinical care.

A second joint conference between VA HPEER and USUHS is planned for VA Research Week 2026; we look forward to the abstracts that will be produced by this new cohort of fellows, as well as to the future scholarship and contributions to the field that will be made by alumni of the HPEER Advanced Fellowship.

The original four HPEER Advanced Fellowship sites were established by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Office of Academic Affiliation in 2014, and expanded in 2020 to include 8 sites and a national coordinating center with leadership shared between VA facilities in Houston and White River Junction. The VA invests heavily in training the nation’s healthcare professionals. The mission of HPEER is to develop leaders who can educate, evaluate, and innovate in Health Professions Education for the VA and the nation. All HPEER sites take part in a nationally coordinated curriculum covering topics in curriculum design, learner assessment, leadership, interprofessional education, as well as scholarship and educational research.

As part of the national HPEER curriculum covering scholarship and educational research, and in concert with Wednesday, May 14, 2025 VA Research Week 2025, HPEER organized a joint conference with the Center for Health Professions Education at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (USUHS). This interagency online event included poster sessions and oral presentations from HPEER fellows and students in USUHS certificate and graduate degree programs.

Education scholarship is broad, ranging from descriptions of curricular innovations and works in progress to advanced research using techniques drawn from psychology, sociology, anthropology, economics, and other scientific disciplines. The abstracts presented here summarize some of the work being done by HPEER fellows. Dougherty et al (Boston) described a project to create a primer outlining methodology for conducting and interpreting cost-effectiveness evaluations in the context of proposed HPE innovations. Cohen et al (Cleveland) found reduction in potentially problematic orders in the context of life-sustaining treatment following a multifaceted intervention program. Sorenson (Dublin, Georgia) reported an expanded Tai Chi program that included modifications allowing seated positions for veterans with mobility limitations. Young et al (Dublin) described an interprofessional curriculum to strengthen communication between nurses and social workers in their conversations with women veterans living in rural settings. Misedah-Robinson et al (Houston) showed that a new training program strengthened coordinators’ self-reports of preparedness and confidence in their ability to support veterans who have experienced human trafficking. Tovar et al (Salt Lake City) describe a methodology for using data from the VHA Corporate Data Warehouse to optimize schedules of HPE students assigned to VA clinical rotations. Yanez et al (San Francisco) presented initial observations of learner-centered outcomes following participation in a new multidisciplinary integrative health elective. Resto et al (West Haven) reported that implementation of self-serve kiosks increased distribution of substance use harm reduction resources beyond usual clinical care.

A second joint conference between VA HPEER and USUHS is planned for VA Research Week 2026; we look forward to the abstracts that will be produced by this new cohort of fellows, as well as to the future scholarship and contributions to the field that will be made by alumni of the HPEER Advanced Fellowship.