Daylight Photodynamic Therapy: At-Home Delivery

This pilot study evaluated the design, usability, and practicality of the dPDT@home kit for treating actinic keratoses (AKs) on the face and scalp. The kit allowed patients to manage their treatment at home, reducing hospital visits and utilizing natural sunlight. While patients were very willing to use the kit again, further studies are required to evaluate outcomes and ascertain the need for additional improvements and support. Background/Objectives: Daylight photodynamic therapy (dPDT) is an established effective therapy for superficial mild-to-moderate actinic keratoses (AKs) on the face and scalp. In this project, we redesigned the delivery of dPDT using design principles and the concept of Realistic Medicine to create the dPDT@home kit. This user-friendly and environmentally conscious kit allows patients to manage their AKs at home, reducing the need for hospital visits and ensuring timely treatment to coincide with appropriate weather conditions and to prevent disease progression due to delays in diagnosis and treatment. The initial pilot phase of the study was to evaluate the usability and convenience of the practicalities of the dPDT@home kit. Methods: Patients were instructed to conduct two dPDT@home kit treatments approximately three weeks apart on suitable weather days. After a follow-up telephone consultation from the specialist PDT nurse following the first treatment, patients then completed an initial questionnaire (Questionnaire 1, Q1) to share their experience. A second questionnaire (Q2) was completed 3-6 months after their final treatment to assess treatment outcomes. Results: A total of 16 patients with AK on the face and/or scalp used the dPDT@home kit. Five patients formed an initial pilot group in 2020/21, whose feedback and involvement informed the final product for the larger group of eleven patients (2021/22). All patients reported no issues with receiving the kit or the pro-drug used in the treatment (Q1). Q2 had an 81.25% return rate, with an average willingness score of 8.9/10 to use dPDT@home again. However, patients expressed doubts about their confidence in the treatment's efficacy, giving an average score of 6.9/10, with preferences leaning towards other treatments, such as hospital-based PDT or cryotherapy. Conclusions: The pilot deployment of the dPDT@home kit identified suitable patients and highlighted the need for comprehensive training and support for both patients and clinicians to deliver dPDT through this novel approach. The kit can reduce the number of hospital visits, but patients still require supervision, which can be provided remotely. The questionnaire outcomes emphasize the importance of setting patient expectations and taking a holistic approach to managing chronic field-change AK. Additionally, the kit's recyclable components and reliance on natural sunlight promote sustainability and reduce patient travel. Further evaluation is required to determine cost-efficacy, safety, and the potential place of the dPDT@home kit in the therapeutic management of patients with this common and challenging condition.