Recent advances in laser technology have resulted in the introduction of new lasers for acne management. These devices all operate on the same wavelengths, but differ tremendously in design and efficacy. The Accure device actually has the largest spot size of 4.7 mm which by default would provide a huge advantage. Its continuous air cooling function distinguishes it from the AviClear laser. As dermatologists continue to investigate these innovations, they stress the distinct mechanisms of action and relative clinical results associated with these therapies.
The Accure laser, designed to penetrate deeper tissue than AviClear, has already produced very promising results in clinical studies. These studies, foundational to Accure receiving FDA clearance, showed efficacy rates in line with current acne treatment alternatives. Patients treated with Accure had a clinically meaningful improvement in their IGA score. Astonishingly, 41.8% of patients reached a score of 2, signifying mild acne, versus only 1.1% at baseline. In addition, 16.5% of patients achieved an IGA score of 3 (moderate) after treatment, compared with 77.5% at baseline. Impressively, no patients developed an IGA score of 4 (severe) following treatment with Accure. This is a very promising start, considering the baseline was at 21.3%.
Technical Differences Between Devices
The difference in spot size compared to AviClear against Accure is one of the more significant differences in device design. Since Accure has a larger spot size it can treat greater depths. It is able to more effectively treat depths of 450-1750 microns versus AviClear’s depth of only 200-750 microns. This increased depth may enable Accure to better target sebaceous glands, which could result in better clinical efficacy for the treatment.
Plus, the device’s closed continuous air cooling function provides a significant procedural benefit. Additionally, unlike AviClear, whose cooling plate warms almost immediately upon application, Accure is able to keep delivering that cooling experience through the full treatment cycle. This extra cooling could further maximize patient comfort and potentially increase their overall treatment experience.
“While technical comparisons between the devices may reveal differences, I would be surprised to see substantial disparity in clinical efficacy — though comprehensive published clinical trial data on Accure are still forthcoming,” – Macrene Alexiades.
Despite these differences, researchers have not performed a head-to-head comparison of Accure and AviClear. This reflects that we have no understanding of important clinical outcomes and surrogate endpoints like sebum reduction. Without this kind of comparative data, it begs the crucial questions. We need to know how these various devices stack up against one another in real-world applications.
Patient Outcomes and Treatment Strategies
Research with the Accure device shows that it is effective on all skin types. Its impact on the surrounding tissue is negligible. To put this in perspective, Sakamoto said these findings were highly significant, adding that both devices showed prolonged remission of acne.
“But what is really interesting is that both devices have shown very prolonged remission of acne,” – Sakamoto.
Usually, it takes multiple sessions of treatment with either device. Alexiades points out that patients usually only require three to four monthly treatments. From there, they can choose to get the treatment boosted after six months. An overwhelming majority of patients should not need further medical therapies after completing this regimen. In addition to getting rid of acne, these treatments provide aesthetic benefits that extend well beyond the cosmos. Patients have experienced ongoing benefits in their scarring.
“Typically, 3-4 monthly sessions are followed by an optional booster around 6 months, with few patients needing additional treatments thereafter. Aesthetic benefits, including scar improvement, have also been notable and reproducible,” – Macrene Alexiades.
Until now, real-world evidence has confirmed both devices are equally effective. Dermatologists are quick to point out that ongoing research and clinical experience will be needed to fully understand their long-term effects.
User Experience and Practical Considerations
Alongside clinical efficacy, user experience is a crucial factor in the acceptability of new technologies by dermatologists. Julie de la Cruz explained that the two lasers work on the same wavelength. Their differences in operation could affect their ease of use in a clinical setting.
“AviClear seems more user-friendly with fewer consumables, while Accure involves more setup and patient-specific components,” – Julie de la Cruz.
Accure provides technical advantages in deep and passive cooling capabilities. On the flipside, AviClear might be much more attractive for practitioners who value efficiency throughout their practice.
With each new development, the landscape of laser treatments for acne continues to change and create an exciting new world of possibilities for enhanced interventions. Sakamoto acknowledged that while these developments can provide a “cure” for some patients—those with ideal responses to treatment—particular advancements represent the digitization of healthcare.
“This is a new era where we have laser treatments that perhaps will give some sort of cure in the best responders,” – Sakamoto.
He went on to explain that clearance rates for these devices have been traditionally higher than clearance rates for devices linked to pharmacological agents.
Leave a Reply