I am not convinced LED Light Therapy is good for the eyes, much less for dry eyes.
An LED is a light emitting diode (LED) which is a complex semiconductor that emits a narrow-spectrum of light. LEDs are everywhere: televisions, phones, tablets, laptops…all smartphones. LEDs are efficient, energy saving, and long-lasting compared to incandescent light.
The problem is that LEDs are known to emit quite a large amount of blue light [1–3].
Blue light is well known to cause photoreceptor cell and retinal pigment epithelial cell (RPE) damage through excessive reactive oxygen species production.
I have long had a theory that the blue light from LED-devices is being absorbed by red blood vessels along the face and eyelids, especially in caucasian patients and those with rosacea (where there are more blood vessels visible on the skin’s surface). This increased absorbed blue light, I have hypothesized, leads to more inflammation, cellular death, and meibomian gland atrophy (and maybe even goblet cell death). It will take years to prove or disprove this theory. In the meantime, I am recommending blue blocking glasses or blue blocking screens for computer devices and using iflux or other apps to decrease blue light.
In the meantime, the below study adds to the knowledge that increased blue light increases oxidative stress which increases dry eye signs and that blue light in the near-ultraviolet (UV) region may be harmful to in vitro mitotic-phase corneal epithelial cells in a dose-dependent manner and in vivo in mice…thus far.
SLC
. 2016 Aug 12;11(8):e0161041.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0161041. eCollection 2016.
Influence of Light Emitting Diode-Derived Blue Light Overexposure on Mouse Ocular Surface
- PMID: 27517861
- PMCID: PMC4982597
- DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0161041
Free PMC article
Erratum in
-
Correction: Influence of Light Emitting Diode-Derived Blue Light Overexposure on Mouse Ocular Surface.PLoS One. 2016 Nov 30;11(11):e0167671. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0167671. eCollection 2016.PMID: 27902781 Free PMC article.
Abstract
Purpose: To investigate the influence of overexposure to light-emitting diode (LED)-derived light with various wavelengths on mouse ocular surface.
Methods: LEDs with various wavelengths were used to irradiate C57BL/6 mice at an energy dose of 50 J/cm2, twice a day, for 10 consecutive days. The red, green, and blue groups represented wavelengths of 630 nm, 525 nm, and 410 nm, respectively. The untouched group (UT) was not exposed to LED light and served as the untreated control. Tear volume, tear film break-up time (TBUT), and corneal fluorescein staining scores were measured on days 1, 3, 5, 7, and 10. Levels of interferon (IFN)-γ, interleukin (IL)-1β, IL-6, and tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α were measured in the cornea and conjunctiva using a multiplex immunobead assay at day 10. Levels of malondialdehyde (MDA) were measured with an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Flow cytometry, 2’7′-dichlorofluorescein diacetate (DCF-DA) assay, histologic analysis, immunohistochemistry with 4-hydroxynonenal, and terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase-mediated dUTP-nick end labeling (TUNEL) staining were also performed.
Results: TBUT of the blue group showed significant decreases at days 7 and 10, compared with the UT and red groups. Corneal fluorescein staining scores significantly increased in the blue group when compared with UT, red, and green groups at days 5, 7, and 10. A significant increase in the corneal levels of IL-1β and IL-6 was observed in the blue group, compared with the other groups. The blue group showed significantly increased reactive oxygen species production in the DCF-DA assay and increased inflammatory T cells in the flow cytometry. A significantly increased TUNEL positive cells were identified in the blue group.
Conclusions: Overexposure to blue light with short wavelengths can induce oxidative damage and apoptosis to the cornea, which may manifest as increased ocular surface inflammation and resultant dry eye.
2. Some MDs note that most light is safe and low levels of light therapy are helpful. As noted above, it will take years for a randomized, prospective, double-blind study shows the best protocol regarding LED light therapy vs Low Level Light Therapy vs avoidance of these options.
Home masks tend to be less intense than in-office treatments, but your eyes still need to be protected — and you need to make sure you follow the instructions to a T. “Just because some is good, more is not better or best. Following the directions and manufacturer guidelines of any home skin tool or device is paramount to its success and safety,” Shamban says. If the manufacturer advises using the treatment once a day for 20 minutes, doing even two or three sessions a day could be dangerous. “I always recommend you check with your board-certified dermatologist before starting any new protocol, product, tool or technology.”
Ultimately, the risk of eye damage is unlikely, says Shamban. “There would need to be a significant overload or cumulative exposures to bright and high intensity,” she says. “Generally, these treatments are simple, safe and controlled to achieve their skin goals, without any residual negative effects on the eyes.”
In below’s article, Karl G. Stonecipher, MD, et.al., conducted a retrospective review combining low-level light therapy with intense pulsed light using a new device known as Eye-light outside of the United States and Epi-C PLUS in the United States (Espansione Marketing S.p.A., Bologna, Italy). “We performed the original physician proof-of-concept study and have followed that up with a four-site, five-surgeon data review to evaluate the effects of this type of therapy on the treatment of dry-eye disease,” said Dr. Stonecipher.
Combined low level light therapy and intense pulsed light therapy for the treatment of meibomian gland dysfunction
Karl Stonecipher, Thomas G Abell, […], and Rick Potvin
Abstract
Purpose
To evaluate the effects of combined intense pulsed light therapy (IPL) and low-level light therapy (LLLT) on clinical measures of dry eye related to severe meibomian gland disease (MGD) in subjects unresponsive to previous medical management.
Patients and Methods
This was a retrospective chart review of patients treated by 4 physicians at 3 centers. All patients were documented treatment failures with traditional pharmaceutical therapy. They all had their MGD evaluated before treatment using a grading scale (0–4), tear breakup time in seconds and the Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) questionnaire. To be included, all patients had to have had a short course of adjunct pharmaceutical or device-related therapy, along with a combined IPL/LLLT treatment. As well, a second MGD evaluation with the same three measures had to have been conducted 1–3 months post treatment.
Results
A total of 460 eyes of 230 patients were identified for inclusion in the data set. Mean OSDI scores were significantly lower after treatment; 70.4% of patients had pretreatment OSDI scores indicative of dry eye; this dropped to 29.1% of patients after treatment. A 1-step or greater reduction in MGD grading was observed in 70% of eyes, with 28% of eyes having a 2-step or greater reduction. Tear breakup time was ≤6 seconds in 86.7% of eyes pretreatment, dropping to 33.9% of eyes after treatment. There were no ocular or facial adverse events or side effects related to the combined light treatment.
Conclusion
The use of combined IPL/LLLT for the treatment of severe MGD appears to be beneficial in patients who have failed topical and/or systemic therapy.
References:
A 1. Stonecipher K, Abell TG, Chotiner B, Chotiner E, Potvin R. Combined low level light therapy and intense pulsed light therapy for the treatment of meibomian gland dysfunction. Clin Ophthalmol. 2019;13:993-999. Published 2019 Jun 11. doi:10.2147/OPTH.S21366
2. Glen Jeffery, Magella Neveu, Victor Chong, Chris Hogg, Sobha Sivaprasad, Manjot Grewal, Harpreet Shinhmar. Optically improved mitochondrial function redeems aged human visual decline. The Journals of Gerontology: Series A, 2020; DOI: 10.1093/gerona/glaa1
3. https://academic.oup.com/biomedgerontology/article/75/9/e49/5863431
4. https://www.aao.org/eye-health/news/red-light-protect-aging-eyes-rlt-pbm-near-infrared
Does Red Light Protect Aging Eyes?
Red light therapy is used to calm acne, heal wounds and reduce arthritis. Now, new findings suggest red light may also protect our eyes as we age. But eye experts warn that the practice has not been well studied in humans — so don’t try this at home.
Exposure to red light may recharge cells in the retina
A study in The Journals of Gerontology found that brief exposure to deep red light — three minutes a day for two weeks — improved older adults’ ability to discern letters against a similarly colored background.
This ability, called color contrast sensitivity, is the work of cone cells in the retina. Cone cells discriminate colors less well as we age. The findings raise the possibility of reinvigorating aged retinal cells by exposing them to beams of long-wavelength (670 nm) red light.
How does this work? Some scientists think red light recharges the cell’s powerhouse or “battery,” known as the mitochondria. As we age, mitochondria produce less energy. Deep red light may restore energy production to youthful levels, studies suggest.
It’s unclear if the new findings will hold up in a large human clinical trial, or whether red light is any more protective than a “dummy light” or a placebo. It’s possible that participants improved their performance on the color contrast test due to the learning effect (that is, by becoming experienced test takers) and not necessarily due to the red light treatment.
But this isn’t the first study to hint at red light’s protective effects on the retina. Most research has been done in animals and in cells grown in the laboratory. A 2017 study found that red light partially reversed the effects of aging in the retinas of old mice, enhancing retinal performance by 25%. And a 2019 study found that while blue light damaged lab-grown retinal cells, red light reversed that damage.
Deep red light is not an approved eye treatment
“Based on research so far, there is some evidence that light therapy has the potential to improve eye health,” says Ninel Z. Gregori, MD, an ophthalmologist at the Bascom Palmer Eye Institute in Miami. “But we need a lot more data in humans before it can be used to treat ocular disease or aging eyes.”
Before red light can be considered as a possible treatment for eye conditions, it must be tested in human clinical trials to make sure it is safe and to determine the most effective wavelength, dose, duration of treatment and delivery method.
If the findings hold up in humans, red light therapy may someday hold promise for treating age-related conditions such as macular degeneration, diabetic eye disease or loss of color vision.
B.
Dangers of IPL: IPL uses polychromatic light (500 to 1300 nm):
These case reports apparently did not have a metal shield placed over the eye prior to the procedure. The metal shield appears to prevent any inflammation: I could not find a report of uveitis or iritis if the metal shield was used.
1. 1. https://www.canadianjournalofophthalmology.ca/article/S0008-4182(12)00020-8/pdf
Uveitis and iris photoablation secondary to
intense pulsed light therapy
Intense pulsed light therapy (IPL) is a noninvasive photorejuvenation treatment used to improve skin texture and
to treat areas of skin dyspigmentation, or telangiectasia.1
More than 380,000 skin rejuvenation procedures were carried out in the United States in 2010.2 IPL is offered by
beauty clinics and is frequently performed by non–medically trained staff. Ease of accessibility has fuelled the rise in
the number of procedures being performed but also has
increased the prevalence of complications caused by inadequate training and experience.3 We present a case of anterior uveitis and iris photoablation secondary to intense
pulsed light therapy. To our knowledge this is 1 of only a
very small number of cases to be described regarding ocular
IPL complications.
A 31-year-old woman presented to the eye casualty department with pain and photophobia in her right eye 2
days after undergoing IPL to remove freckles from her face.
She was given eye protection but it was removed to treat
her eyelids. During the procedure she complained of discomfort in her right eye and afterwards noticed that the
conjunctiva was injected and her pupil was irregular. On
examination, her visual acuity was 6/6 bilaterally. The
right eye showed diffuse conjunctival injection with 2
cells in the anterior chamber. Notably, intrastromal hemorrhages were present in her iris (Fig. 1) and there were
diffuse transillumination defects (Fig. 2). Fundus examination revealed no abnormality. The examination of the
left eye was unremarkable. She was treated with topical
steroids and a cycloplegic. The uveitis subsequently resolved, but she has been left with anisocoria and complains
of severe glare secondary to the iris stromal transillumination defects. A tinted contact lens has been issued to help.
IPL uses polychromatic light (500 to 1300 nm) to
induce photothermolysis of human pigmented tissues.
The iris, with its richly pigmented structure, absorbs
light within this spectrum and consequently renders it
vulnerable to damage by IPL.4 To date there is little
literature to suggest that other ocular tissues, such as
cornea and lens, have been inadvertently damaged by
IPL. However, its potential effect on pigmented structures such as the retinal pigment epithelium remains of
concern.
As the popularity of IPL increases, it is important that its
ocular side effects are recognized by treatment providers
and also by ophthalmologists. Patients undergoing IPL
should routinely be offered eye protection and never instructed to remove it. Better training of and awareness by
treating technicians to potential side effects will help to
prevent similar cases in the future.
2. http://www.jkslms.or.kr/journal/view.html?uid=83&vmd=Full
C.
Low-level light therapy of the eye and brain
Julio C Rojas and F Gonzalez-Lima
Rojas JC, Gonzalez-Lima F. Low-level light therapy of the eye and brain. Eye Brain. 2011;3:49-67. Published 2011 Oct 14. doi:10.2147/EB.S21391
Abstract
Low-level light therapy (LLLT) using red to near-infrared light energy has gained attention in recent years as a new scientific approach with therapeutic applications in ophthalmology, neurology, and psychiatry. The ongoing therapeutic revolution spearheaded by LLLT is largely propelled by progress in the basic science fields of photobiology and bioenergetics. This paper describes the mechanisms of action of LLLT at the molecular, cellular, and nervous tissue levels. Photoneuromodulation of cytochrome oxidase activity is the most important primary mechanism of action of LLLT. Cytochrome oxidase is the primary photoacceptor of light in the red to near-infrared region of the electromagnetic spectrum. It is also a key mitochondrial enzyme for cellular bioenergetics, especially for nerve cells in the retina and the brain. Evidence shows that LLLT can secondarily enhance neural metabolism by regulating mitochondrial function, intraneuronal signaling systems, and redox states. Current knowledge about LLLT dosimetry relevant for its hormetic effects on nervous tissue, including noninvasive in vivo retinal and transcranial effects, is also presented. Recent research is reviewed that supports LLLT potential benefits in retinal disease, stroke, neurotrauma, neurodegeneration, and memory and mood disorders. Since mitochondrial dysfunction plays a key role in neurodegeneration, LLLT has potential significant applications against retinal and brain damage by counteracting the consequences of mitochondrial failure. Upon transcranial delivery in vivo, LLLT induces brain metabolic and antioxidant beneficial effects, as measured by increases in cytochrome oxidase and superoxide dismutase activities. Increases in cerebral blood flow and cognitive functions induced by LLLT have also been observed in humans. Importantly, LLLT given at energy densities that exert beneficial effects does not induce adverse effects. This highlights the value of LLLT as a novel paradigm to treat visual, neurological, and psychological conditions, and supports that neuronal energy
It is unknown whether in vivo exposure to light below 600 nm (such as blue or green light) can have beneficial effects on other nerve cells that are not specialized for photoreception. The red to near-infrared wavelength range has shown to be the most effective at inducing in vivo beneficial effects in cells that do not appear to have specialized photopigments. This is attributed in part to the capacity of different wavelengths to penetrate tissue: lower wavelengths such as violet and ultraviolet appear to penetrate less, whereas those in the red and infrared range have higher penetration. Also, energy at wavelengths shorter than 600 nm is generally scattered in biological tissues in vivo and they tend to be absorbed by melanin, whereas water significantly absorbs energy at wavelengths higher than 1150 nm.6 For clinical purposes, this implies the existence of an in vivo therapeutic “optical window” that corresponds to red and near-infrared wavelengths. As discussed below, this window also matches the ability of luminous energy to excite susceptible intracellular molecules.6For this reason, LLLT has also been referred to as near-infrared light therapy. LLLT is based on the principle that certain molecules in living systems are able to absorb photons and trigger signaling pathways in response to light.7 This process is termed energy conversion, and implies that the molecule excited by light reaches an electronically excited state that temporarily changes its conformation and function.
Low-level light therapy of the eye and brain
Julio C Rojas and F Gonzalez-Lima
Abstract
Low-level light therapy (LLLT) using red to near-infrared light energy has gained attention in recent years as a new scientific approach with therapeutic applications in ophthalmology, neurology, and psychiatry. The ongoing therapeutic revolution spearheaded by LLLT is largely propelled by progress in the basic science fields of photobiology and bioenergetics. This paper describes the mechanisms of action of LLLT at the molecular, cellular, and nervous tissue levels. Photoneuromodulation of cytochrome oxidase activity is the most important primary mechanism of action of LLLT. Cytochrome oxidase is the primary photoacceptor of light in the red to near-infrared region of the electromagnetic spectrum. It is also a key mitochondrial enzyme for cellular bioenergetics, especially for nerve cells in the retina and the brain. Evidence shows that LLLT can secondarily enhance neural metabolism by regulating mitochondrial function, intraneuronal signaling systems, and redox states. Current knowledge about LLLT dosimetry relevant for its hormetic effects on nervous tissue, including noninvasive in vivo retinal and transcranial effects, is also presented. Recent research is reviewed that supports LLLT potential benefits in retinal disease, stroke, neurotrauma, neurodegeneration, and memory and mood disorders. Since mitochondrial dysfunction plays a key role in neurodegeneration, LLLT has potential significant applications against retinal and brain damage by counteracting the consequences of mitochondrial failure. Upon transcranial delivery in vivo, LLLT induces brain metabolic and antioxidant beneficial effects, as measured by increases in cytochrome oxidase and superoxide dismutase activities. Increases in cerebral blood flow and cognitive functions induced by LLLT have also been observed in humans. Importantly, LLLT given at energy densities that exert beneficial effects does not induce adverse effects. This highlights the value of LLLT as a novel paradigm to treat visual, neurological, and psychological conditions, and supports that neuronal energy metabolism could constitute a major target for neurotherapeutics of the eye and brain.
Introduction
Low-level light therapy (LLLT) has gained attention in recent years as a novel tool for experimental therapeutic applications in a variety of medical conditions. The current paradigm shift in the field of neurotherapeutics has allowed consideration of this innovative approach in attempts to modify the function of the nervous system. Patients, research laboratories, the media, and industry around the world are devoting attention to the potential therapeutic applications of LLLT in neurology and other medical fields that have traditionally had a limited therapeutic contribution to patient care. In recent years, the use of LLLT has extended beyond the realms of pain and wound healing, and recent research supports its potential benefits in retinal disease, stroke, neurodegeneration, neuromuscular disorders, and memory and mood disorders. This therapeutic revolution is being favored by progress in the field of photobiology, aided by a twenty-first century reemergence of interest in bioenergetics. Current progress in photochemistry, genetics, informatics, and neuroimaging has allowed quantifying and differentiating the effects of light and other forms of electromagnetic radiation on biological tissues at different levels of analysis.
Throughout its development in the last 40 years, the concept of using “light to heal” has had an esoteric and suspicious connotation to the western contemporary biomedical mind. As illustrated by a reviewer’s comments from a reputable biomedical journal to a recent manuscript on LLLT, the “curious effects” of light therapy have had the misfortune of being classified as a laughable school of thought in the tradition of astrology and Mesmer’s animal magnetism. We are constantly exposed to light with apparently innocuous or trivial biological effects. Even when biological effects of light can be demonstrated, these are highly variable, present nontraditional dose-response curves, or lack a mechanistic explanation within traditional pharmacodynamic paradigms. A recent review stated that “widespread uncertainty and confusion exists about the mechanisms of action of LLLT at the molecular, cellular, and tissue levels.”1Thus, it is not surprising that LLLT lacks scientific appeal and has been denied entrance into mainstream medicine. Even when the benefit of doubt is allowed, LLLT could easily be regarded as a science-fiction construct or wishful thinking. Yet, compelling data on the potential clinical value of LLLT is available. A sound theory on the mechanism of action of LLLT implicating regulation of mitochondrial function has been advanced, and available data support that light-tissue interactions have special implications in highly metabolically-active excitable tissues, including the retina and the brain. Although there is still a lot to learn about mechanistic light-tissue interactions in the nervous system and the retina, evidence shows that LLLT can enhance neural metabolism by regulating mitochondrial function, intraneuronal signaling systems, and redox states. This review will briefly describe the current proposed photochemical mechanisms underlying the neurobiological effects of LLLT. A summary of current knowledge about LLLT dosimetry relevant for its variable effects in the nervous system, including noninvasive in vivo transcranial effects is also presented. A summary of key in vitro, preclinical, and clinical studies supporting the protective and enhancing effects of LLLT in a number of pathogenic conditions including cytotoxicity, mitochondrial dysfunction, and hypoxia/ischemia in the retina and the central nervous system is presented. The data on LLLT suggest it can exert effective, reproducible, and meaningful changes in the normal and dysfunctional nervous tissue. This highlights the value of LLLT as a novel and useful paradigm to treat visual, neurological, and psychological conditions, and supports that neuronal energy metabolism could constitute a major target for neurotherapeutics of the eye and brain.
What is LLLT?
Light is a type of electromagnetic radiation with both wave-like and particle-like properties. Living organisms are immersed in a vast ocean of electromagnetic radiation, which consists of periodic oscillations in electromagnetic fields that travel space and are thus able to transfer energy. Hence, light is a form of energy called luminous energy. A wave of electromagnetic radiation has a unidirectional vector and can be characterized in terms of its wavelength (λ = the distance between successive peaks or troughs), frequency (the number of oscillations per second), and amplitude (the difference between trough and peak). A complex mixture of waves with different frequencies, amplitudes, and wavelengths are absorbed, scattered, and reflected by objects, including biological material. Light of only one wavelength is called monochromatic. In modern quantum physics, electromagnetic radiation consists of photons, which are particles (quanta) of energy that travel at a speed of 3 × 108 m/second. The brightness of light is the number of photons and the color of the light is the energy contained in each photon. LLLT can be defined as the use of directional low-power and high-fluence monochromatic or quasimonochromatic light from lasers or light-emitting diodes (LEDs) in the red to near-infrared wavelengths (λ = 600–1100 nm) to modulate a biological function or induce a therapeutic effect in a nondestructive and nonthermal manner.2,3The effects of LLLT implicate conversion of luminous energy to metabolic energy with a subsequent modulation of the biological functioning of cells. Thus, LLLT is commonly known as photobiomodulation. It could also be called photoneuromodulation when nerve cells are the target. LLLT differs from the conventional effects of high-energy photon delivery commonly associated with lasers, which are mediated by a greater release of energy and result in heating and tissue destruction through dissection, ablation, coagulation, and vaporization. Compared to these commonly known destructive effects of lasers, LLLT is catalogued as “low-level” because the energy content of electromagnetic radiation is inversely proportional to its wavelength. In addition, the target tissue is generally exposed to low irradiances (ie, low Watts per cm2 of tissue), when compared to the energy delivered for ablative applications. Energy doses delivered by LLLT are too low to cause concerns about heating and tissue destruction, yet they are high enough to modulate cell functions. In fact, the typical irradiances used for photobiomodulation applications overlap with those used in topical photodynamic therapy for skin conditions.4 Early experiments demonstrated that photoneuromodulation of electrical activity in neurons can be achieved independently of thermal effects.5
Although cells in vitro are responsive to a variety of wavelengths in the electromagnetic spectrum, beneficial responses in vivo are observed preferentially within a more narrow wavelength range. Obviously, visible light (400–700 nm) penetrates the eyes and activates retinal cells that contain specialized photopigments (rods, cones, and some ganglion cells). But it is unknown whether in vivo exposure to light below 600 nm (such as blue or green light) can have beneficial effects on other nerve cells that are not specialized for photoreception. The red to near-infrared wavelength range has shown to be the most effective at inducing in vivo beneficial effects in cells that do not appear to have specialized photopigments. This is attributed in part to the capacity of different wavelengths to penetrate tissue: lower wavelengths such as violet and ultraviolet appear to penetrate less, whereas those in the red and infrared range have higher penetration. Also, energy at wavelengths shorter than 600 nm is generally scattered in biological tissues in vivo and they tend to be absorbed by melanin, whereas water significantly absorbs energy at wavelengths higher than 1150 nm.6 For clinical purposes, this implies the existence of an in vivo therapeutic “optical window” that corresponds to red and near-infrared wavelengths. As discussed below, this window also matches the ability of luminous energy to excite susceptible intracellular molecules.6For this reason, LLLT has also been referred to as near-infrared light therapy. LLLT is based on the principle that certain molecules in living systems are able to absorb photons and trigger signaling pathways in response to light.7 This process is termed energy conversion, and implies that the molecule excited by light reaches an electronically excited state that temporarily changes its conformation and function.