Vaginitis

A comparison between laser therapy and drug therapy in the treatment of vaginitis

Passeniouk A M, Michailov V A.

30 women with non-specific vaginitis and vaginal candidiasis were treated with LLLT and topical chlorhexidine application daily for ten days. 20 women with the same condition were treated with metronidazole (10 g as course dose) and fluconozole (150 mg single dose) and vaginal application of metronidazole. The results suggest that local laser therapy is able to remove signs of vaginitis more efficiently than drug therapy. Repair of normal vaginal microflora was significantly faster in the laser group. There were no side effects in the laser group whereas there were women on drug therapy who reported side effects.

Photomed Laser Surg. 2007 Jun;25(3):150-8.

Antiinfectives and low-level light: a new chapter in photomedicine.

Sommer AP.

Materials Division, University of Ulm, Ulm, Germany. samoan@gmx.net

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to identify synergistic effects in the interaction of light with biosystems in the presence of chemical agents. Their systematic analysis promises therapeutic strategies.

BACKGROUND DATA: Light intensities around 1000 Wm(2) potentially induce density variations in nanoscopic water layers adhering to surfaces in air or subaquatically. In permeable nanoscopic compartments in the interior of biosystems, this could result in powerful flow processes and bidirectional flows for repetitive applications of light. Consequently, external stimulation with light will force microorganisms and cells to incorporate a suitable antiinfective. Nanoscale biosystems, which respond to both light stimulation and antibiotics, are nanobacteria. Responses include growth, inhibition, and slime secretion. Slime secretion was provoked in vitro by gentamycin, an agent proposed for in vivo eradication, and blocked by light. Depending on the field of action, co-operative effects between light and an antiinfective can be exploited by considering two properties of the drug: transmission of light and resorption by the tissue. Antiinfectives can be administered in an active form or via drug delivery systems. In the latter case, a double action of the light could be exploited: stimulated release from the carrier and subsequent uptake by the targeted biosystem.

METHODS: The attenuation of laser light (670 nm) by antiinfectives was measured in films of different thickness of a vaginal suppository. The effect of 670-nm laser light – not absorbed by water – on nanoscopic water layers was examined by comparing the evaporation time of irradiated drops of water-based nanosuspensions with non-irradiated controls.

RESULTS: The 6-microm-thick suppository films were virtually transparent to the laser light, and the 1-mm-thick films totally attenuated it. Nanosuspension drops irradiated with 670-nm light needed more time to evaporate than controls.

CONCLUSION: Low-level light (LLL) therapy is compatible with antiinfectives, and even capable of boosting effects of superficially applied and/or absorbed antiinfectives. Temporal coordination between light treatment and drug administration maximizes drug effects and minimizes possible adverse effects. Irradiation should start when the drug concentration has reached its maximum in the desired field of action. Light-induced flow in nanoscale cavities could represent one mechanism of LLL therapy.