What is narrowband UVB, and how does it work for vitiligo?
Narrowband UVB is medical light therapy that uses a narrow slice of ultraviolet B light, tuned to a wavelength near 311 nanometres. Think of it like a flashlight fitted with a colored filter. The filter blocks most of the light, letting through mostly the one band that has a useful effect on skin. For vitiligo, that narrow band is thought to work by calming an overactive local immune response and stimulating the cell signals involved in pigment activity. It does not add color directly. Evidence Evidence This statement has a dated source and is waiting for a clinician's sign-off. Pending clinical review
Why this matters
- Limited evidence
I read the British guideline behind clinic-directed narrowband UVB, which confirms the narrow band, peaking near 311 nanometres, that these lamps are built to emit. A dermatology reference source states that the light works for vitiligo through immune suppression and stimulation of cytokines.
Considerations
- Depends on you
Neither source explains why one person’s pigment cells respond faster than another’s, and neither predicts an individual result from a mechanism description alone.
Questions for your phototherapy conversation
What about my vitiligo makes this specific light source worth discussing?
Saving keeps this on your device and needs JavaScript, which is off in this browser.How does the mechanism you just described apply to the body areas I care about?
Saving keeps this on your device and needs JavaScript, which is off in this browser.
When might narrowband UVB enter the conversation?
Narrowband UVB may be discussed when the pattern, activity, extent, body sites, prior treatment, and your goals make light treatment worth considering. It is an option - not an automatic next rung after a topical medicine and not evidence that you failed. Evidence Evidence This statement has a dated source and is waiting for a clinician's sign-off. Pending clinical review
Why this matters
- Limited evidence
Guidelines include narrowband UVB among established clinician-directed vitiligo options and describe its use alone or with selected topical care. Ask for the reason it is being considered, in terms you understand.
Considerations
- Depends on you
The same diagnosis does not create the same decision for everyone. A clinician must determine candidacy and choose the device; repigmentation remains uncertain.
Questions for your phototherapy conversation
What about my vitiligo makes narrowband UVB worth discussing now?
Saving keeps this on your device and needs JavaScript, which is off in this browser.What goal would we use to decide whether the burden remains worthwhile?
Saving keeps this on your device and needs JavaScript, which is off in this browser.
How often are sessions, and how long before you know if it is working?
Your dermatologist sets your exact schedule. A widely used dermatology reference states that a course of treatment for vitiligo continues across a period of three to four months before extending further. It continues until repigmentation is complete, or for one to two years. That overall pace is slower than the schedule the same source gives for other skin conditions treated with the same light. In the HI-Light trial, participants used a home handheld narrowband UVB device for up to nine months as part of a supervised study. Evidence Evidence This statement has a dated source and is waiting for a clinician's sign-off. Pending clinical review
Why this matters
- Limited evidence
The reference source gives a three-to-four-month starting window and a one-to-two-year continuation window specifically for vitiligo. That is distinct from, and less frequent than, the schedule it gives for other conditions on the same page. I do not publish an exact session count or weekly interval, and neither do the sources I cite. The HI-Light trial’s own protocol ran home phototherapy for up to nine months.
Considerations
- Depends on you
A general reference schedule is not your personal prescription, and your clinician may set a different frequency based on your skin, your device, and how you respond. Neither source states an exact day when most people first notice a change.
Questions for your phototherapy conversation
What frequency and duration are you recommending for me, and why?
Saving keeps this on your device and needs JavaScript, which is off in this browser.When would we first check whether it is working?
Saving keeps this on your device and needs JavaScript, which is off in this browser.
What share of people repigment with narrowband UVB?
You are being asked to give up months to this, so here are the numbers rather than adjectives. A 2017 review pooled narrowband UVB studies: 29 in all, covering 1201 people. But each bar and time point uses only the studies that reported it, so the pools below are smaller. The review kept people who stopped early where it could. Otherwise it counted the group described at the final assessment. Two bars were reported: Evidence This statement has a dated source and is waiting for a clinician's sign-off. Pending clinical review
- At least a quarter of the pigment back: 62.1% of people at 3 months, 74.2% at 6 months, 75.0% at 12 months.
- At least three quarters back: 13.0% at 3 months, 19.2% at 6 months, 35.7% at 12 months.
Why this matters
- Limited evidence
The 12-month figures rest on the largest groups, 512 and 540 people across 8 and 9 studies. The pattern in the numbers is that the higher bar keeps rising with time while the lower bar flattens after 6 months.
- The reported range around the 12-month marked figure of 35.7% runs from 21.5% to 49.9%.
- The range around the 3-month figure of 62.1% runs from 46.9% to 77.3%.
Considerations
- Depends on you
These averages pool single treatment arms. No untreated group was compared, so the numbers cannot say how much of the change the light caused. The 3-, 6- and 12-month figures also come from different sets of studies, so the rise between them is not the same as following one group over time. The review reports considerable differences between studies in design, participants and protocol. Its database search ended in January 2016. A pooled group average is not a prediction for one person or one patch.
Questions for your phototherapy conversation
Which of these numbers is the closest match to my vitiligo?
Saving keeps this on your device and needs JavaScript, which is off in this browser.What would we look at together before deciding whether this is still worth it?
Saving keeps this on your device and needs JavaScript, which is off in this browser.
Do PUVA and excimer light have the same numbers?
No. PUVA has its own pooled figures in that review, and they sit lower. Excimer light has no comparable pooled figure at all. Evidence This statement has a dated source and is waiting for a clinician's sign-off. Pending clinical review
- PUVA, at least a quarter of the pigment back: 51.4% at 6 months and 61.6% at 12 months.
- PUVA, at least three quarters back: 8.5% at 6 months and 13.6% at 12 months.
- Excimer light: this review did not pool it, and I have no equivalent pooled figure to publish.
Why this matters
- Limited evidence
The PUVA figures rest on far fewer people: 227 in 9 studies, against 1201 in 29 for narrowband UVB. The review also notes that PUVA is not used in children or in pregnancy, because the psoralen acts throughout the body.
Considerations
- Depends on you
These are two separate pooled averages, not a head-to-head trial, so they cannot rank one light source against another. The PUVA range at 12 months runs from 20.2% all the way to 100%, which is too wide to be useful. The excimer reviews I found study it paired with another treatment, or against another device, so their results would not sit fairly beside these.
Questions for your phototherapy conversation
Which light source is being proposed for me, and why that one?
Saving keeps this on your device and needs JavaScript, which is off in this browser.What evidence exists for the exact light source you are suggesting?
Saving keeps this on your device and needs JavaScript, which is off in this browser.
Does moving from a topical to narrowband UVB mean I stop the topical?
Not necessarily. You may need to continue, replace, or combine parts of a plan. That choice depends on the exact medicine, its label, the evidence for the pair, and who coordinates care. Do not make that change from a generic sequence you read online. Evidence Evidence Evidence This statement has a dated source and is waiting for a clinician's sign-off. Pending clinical review
Why this matters
- Limited evidence
Selected topical-and-light combinations have been studied, including a supervised home-light trial with a topical corticosteroid. Other topical labels contain ultraviolet precautions that must be reconciled before combination.
Considerations
- Depends on you
Evidence for one medicine-device pairing does not transfer to another. A study does not provide your settings, schedule, or permission to combine treatments.
Questions for your phototherapy conversation
What changes in my current plan if light treatment begins?
Saving keeps this on your device and needs JavaScript, which is off in this browser.Does my topical’s label conflict with ultraviolet treatment?
Saving keeps this on your device and needs JavaScript, which is off in this browser.
What are the side effects, and what should prompt me to contact my care team?
The most common short-term effect is erythema, a sunburn-type reaction. Itching, dry skin, and cold sores returning can also happen. Pain or blistering needs prompt instructions from your treating team, not a guess. With repeated courses over months or years, skin exposed to the light can show photoageing - wrinkling and discolouration. Clinics build in a safety review once a course reaches a set number of treatments. The full long-term skin-cancer risk specific to narrowband UVB is not established. One UK hospital unit’s own patient materials estimate lifetime risk using an assumption that narrowband UVB behaves like sunlight, not a direct measurement. Evidence Evidence This statement has a dated source and is waiting for a clinician's sign-off. Pending clinical review
Why this matters
- Limited evidence
I read the British guideline behind clinic-directed narrowband UVB for the safety framework, the sunburn-type reaction limit, and eye protection. I also read a UK hospital unit’s patient information leaflet. It states that photoageing can follow repeated courses, and that a review becomes usual practice past a stated number of treatments. It also states that the full risk of narrowband UVB is not known.
Considerations
- Depends on you
I can’t grade a reaction or predict your risk from here. Your skin type, treatment history, body area, and exact treatment plan all change what is safe for you. The leaflet’s own lifetime-risk estimate rests on an assumption, not a measurement. Its printed review date has passed, so it is used here only for what it plainly states.
Questions for your phototherapy conversation
Which changes mean I should pause and contact you?
Saving keeps this on your device and needs JavaScript, which is off in this browser.How will you monitor for photoageing or other change over repeated courses?
Saving keeps this on your device and needs JavaScript, which is off in this browser.
Six more answers: response by body site, cost and assistance, clinic vs. home, what other patients say, what to settle before starting, and what to track
Will every patch respond the same way?
No, and the gap is wide enough to change what you should expect. The same review pooled narrowband UVB results by body area after at least 6 months. At least three quarters of the pigment came back for: Evidence Evidence This statement has a dated source and is waiting for a clinician's sign-off. Pending clinical review
- Face and neck: 44.2% of 153 people in 5 studies.
- Trunk: 26.1% of 134 people in 5 studies.
- Arms and legs, hands and feet excluded: 17.3% of 162 people in 5 studies.
- Hands and feet: nobody. None of 172 people in 6 studies reached that bar.
Why this matters
- Limited evidence
At the lower bar the picture changes. For at least a quarter of the pigment back, face and neck, trunk and limbs sit close together at 82.0%, 81.7% and 79.0%. Hands and feet stay far behind at 11.0%. So on hands and feet some color returned for about one person in nine, and a near-complete result for none of them.
- Separate a group average from a prediction about one patch.
- Set a realistic goal for each priority area instead of one whole-body promise.
- Ask separately whether the proposed device can practically reach and cover each priority area; that is planning context, not a prediction of biological response.
Considerations
- Depends on you
Body site is only one factor. Disease pattern, hair follicles, prior response, treatment context, and study population can also matter. Ordinary photographs cannot diagnose activity or calculate a clinical score.
Questions for your phototherapy conversation
What is a realistic goal for each body area I care about?
Saving keeps this on your device and needs JavaScript, which is off in this browser.How will we document change without overreading normal photo differences?
Saving keeps this on your device and needs JavaScript, which is off in this browser.
Face and neck
At least a quarter of the pigment back: 82.0%. At least three-quarters back: 44.2% of 153 people in 5 studies.
Trunk
At least a quarter of the pigment back: 81.7%. At least three-quarters back: 26.1% of 134 people in 5 studies.
Arms and legs
Hands and feet excluded. At least a quarter of the pigment back: 79.0%. At least three-quarters back: 17.3% of 162 people in 5 studies.
Hands and feet
At least a quarter of the pigment back: 11.0%. At least three-quarters back: none of 172 people in 6 studies reached that bar.
Pooled results from the same 2017 review, by body area, after at least 6 months. A group average is not a prediction for one patch, and body site is only one factor in an individual result.
What does it cost, and what assistance exists?
Phototherapy for vitiligo does not have one published list price. Home narrowband UVB units are sold directly by manufacturers. Selected manufacturers describe benefit checks, prior-authorization help, insured-patient assistance, and discounted cash-pricing options for their own devices, without publishing an exact discount amount. No published cost model specific to narrowband UVB in vitiligo exists yet. I compare current device prices, with dated sources, on the home narrowband UVB device page. Evidence Evidence This statement has a dated source and is waiting for a clinician's sign-off. Pending clinical review
Why this matters
- Limited evidence
Selected home-device manufacturers I checked describe first-party benefit-check, prior-authorization, insured-patient-assistance, and discounted cash-pricing programs for their own devices.
Considerations
- Depends on you
A manufacturer’s description of its own program is not independent evidence of what any one reader would actually pay. Neither source publishes an exact discount amount or confirms eligibility for a given plan.
Questions for your phototherapy conversation
Does my plan cover in-clinic sessions, a home unit, or both, and what would each cost me?
Saving keeps this on your device and needs JavaScript, which is off in this browser.Would I qualify for a manufacturer or insurer assistance program?
Saving keeps this on your device and needs JavaScript, which is off in this browser.
Should I use a clinic or a home device?
People I have heard from ask whether a home unit is worth buying, and which kind. Choosing between clinic and home depends on travel, scheduling, cost, privacy, safety at home, device support, and your care team’s supervision. Home treatment can reduce travel. Owning a device does not make phototherapy self-directed care. Evidence Evidence This statement has a dated source and is waiting for a clinician's sign-off. Pending clinical review
Why this matters
- Limited evidence
Guidelines and clinical research recognize both supervised clinic care and selected home treatment. Each setting changes where training, observation, documentation, and technical support happen.
Considerations
- Depends on you
No general comparison can tell you which setting your clinician, insurer, home, or exact device can support. Coverage and supplier terms need separate confirmation.
Questions for your phototherapy conversation
What supervision and follow-up would happen in each setting?
Saving keeps this on your device and needs JavaScript, which is off in this browser.What would my actual travel, cost, setup, and support burden be?
Saving keeps this on your device and needs JavaScript, which is off in this browser.
What do other people say about using it, and what does Ajith’s experience add?
No reader has sent me a first-hand account of narrowband UVB for vitiligo repigmentation yet. Until someone does, here is what the label and the studies say about living with it. Evidence This statement has a dated source and is waiting for a clinician's sign-off. Pending clinical review
Why this matters
- Limited evidence
Sessions happen on a set schedule your dermatologist adjusts. The HI-Light trial’s own home-treatment protocol ran for up to nine months as part of a supervised study.
Considerations
- Depends on you
No one has written to me yet about fitting sessions into a work or family schedule. No source I read describes what living with a multi-month course is really like day to day.
Questions for your phototherapy conversation
What have your other patients told you about sticking with a months-long light-therapy course?
Saving keeps this on your device and needs JavaScript, which is off in this browser.
What should be settled before I begin?
Know the clinical goal and body areas in the plan. Ask which products the team reviewed, who answers safety questions, what to record, and when to review the plan. The device instructions and clinician plan remain your operating sources. Evidence Evidence This statement has a dated source and is waiting for a clinician's sign-off. Pending clinical review
Why this matters
- Limited evidence
Phototherapy guidance emphasizes candidacy, safety review, eye protection, reaction reporting, follow-up, and treatment-specific documentation. A coherent plan also names who coordinates conflicts between a topical label and a light-treatment plan.
Considerations
- Depends on you
A checklist cannot resolve an individual contraindication or replace training. New medicines, health changes, pregnancy, or a different device can change the conversation.
Questions for your phototherapy conversation
Who do I contact about a reaction or conflicting instruction?
Saving keeps this on your device and needs JavaScript, which is off in this browser.What should I record so our review is based on more than memory?
Saving keeps this on your device and needs JavaScript, which is off in this browser.
What is worth tracking while you use it?
Keep a dated record of which sessions you attend and any reaction you notice, however mild. Add a same-conditions photo - same light, distance and angle - around your first review point, then again at any later check your dermatologist sets. If you switch between clinic visits and a home device, note the date of the switch so your dermatologist can recalibrate rather than assume continuity. Evidence This statement has a dated source and is waiting for a clinician's sign-off. Pending clinical review
Why this matters
- Limited evidence
A dated, comparable record is what lets a scheduled review actually answer whether treatment is working. The guideline behind clinic-directed narrowband UVB documents safety review and reaction reporting as part of doing this safely.
Considerations
- Depends on you
A photo log and session record do not replace a clinical exam, and cannot by themselves catch a reaction that has not yet become visible.
Questions for your phototherapy conversation
What should I track between now and my first review?
Saving keeps this on your device and needs JavaScript, which is off in this browser.
Evidence snapshot
Every pooled percentage above comes from one 2017 systematic review. Its design answers what happened to those groups, not how much of it the light caused.
- Design
- Single-arm meta-analysis of prospective studies. Treatment arms were pooled; no untreated comparison group was analysed.
- Size
- 35 studies and 1428 people: 29 studies and 1201 people for narrowband UVB, 9 studies and 227 people for PUVA.
- Response definition
- A quartile scale - at least 25%, at least 50% or at least 75% of the pigment returned. Each percentage rests on its own subset of studies. The review kept people who stopped early where it could, and otherwise counted the group at the final assessment.
- Heterogeneity
- The review reports considerable differences between studies in design, participants and protocol, and calls its own quartile scale somewhat arbitrary.
- Currency
- The database search ran to January 26, 2016. Nothing published after that date is in these figures.
- Not comparable with the drug pages
- These percentages cannot be set beside the branded-medicine percentages on the medicine pages. The scales, the populations and the study designs differ, and those trials had placebo groups.
Applicability check
Who was studied?
These fields show what the cited evidence reports about the people and body sites behind outcome or safety claims. “Not reported” means the reviewed source omitted the field; “Pending exact source review” means SteadySkin has not made that determination yet.
One evidence record, 3 statements
You are being asked to give up months to this, so here are the numbers rather than adjectives. A 2017 review pooled narrowband UVB studies: 29 in all, covering 1201 people. But each bar and time point uses only the studies that reported it, so the pools below are smaller. The review kept people who stopped early where it could. Otherwise it counted the group described at the final assessment. Two bars were reported: At least a quarter of the pigment back: 62.1% of people at 3 months, 74.2% at 6 months, 75.0% at 12 months. At least three quarters back: 13.0% at 3 months, 19.2% at 6 months, 35.7% at 12 months.
No. PUVA has its own pooled figures in that review, and they sit lower. Excimer light has no comparable pooled figure at all. PUVA, at least a quarter of the pigment back: 51.4% at 6 months and 61.6% at 12 months. PUVA, at least three quarters back: 8.5% at 6 months and 13.6% at 12 months. Excimer light: this review did not pool it, and I have no equivalent pooled figure to publish.
No, and the gap is wide enough to change what you should expect. The same review pooled narrowband UVB results by body area after at least 6 months. At least three quarters of the pigment came back for: Face and neck: 44.2% of 153 people in 5 studies. Trunk: 26.1% of 134 people in 5 studies. Arms and legs, hands and feet excluded: 17.3% of 162 people in 5 studies. Hands and feet: nobody. None of 172 people in 6 studies reached that bar.
- Age range
- Three of the pooled studies enrolled children only, 8 enrolled adults only, and 24 enrolled all ages. Reported mean ages ran from about 10 to about 49 years, and individual ages from 3 to 77.
- Condition subtype
- Generalized or nonsegmental vitiligo. Segmental vitiligo was not the subject of this pooled review.
- Severity or extent
- Extent requirements differed by study. Some required at least 2% of body surface, others 5%, 10%, 15%, 20% or more. Many studies did not state an extent.
- Sample size
- 1428 people across 35 prospective studies. 1201 people in 29 studies received narrowband UVB, and 227 people in 9 studies received PUVA.
- Geography and care setting
- The pooled studies came from Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Egypt, England, Greece, India, Iran, Iraq, Italy, Korea, Nepal, Norway, the Netherlands, Tunisia, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates. All were prospective studies, so treatment was given in a study setting.
- Skin tone or phototype
- Fitzpatrick skin types were listed study by study and spanned types I to VI, most often types II to V. Several studies did not record skin type.
- Race
- Not reported
- Ethnicity
- Not reported
- Body sites
- For narrowband UVB, face and neck, trunk, extremities, and hands and feet were pooled separately after at least 6 months. PUVA was not pooled by body site, because too few of the studies reported it.
What that means for this page: These are pooled averages for groups of people in studies published up to January 2016. They describe what happened to those groups. They are not a prediction for you or for one patch, and the review sets no device, schedule or dose. Because the pooling combined single treatment arms, these percentages are not a measured difference against no treatment.
The most common short-term effect is erythema, a sunburn-type reaction. Itching, dry skin, and cold sores returning can also happen. Pain or blistering needs prompt instructions from your treating team, not a guess. With repeated courses over months or years, skin exposed to the light can show photoageing - wrinkling and discolouration. Clinics build in a safety review once a course reaches a set number of treatments. The full long-term skin-cancer risk specific to narrowband UVB is not established. One UK hospital unit’s own patient materials estimate lifetime risk using an assumption that narrowband UVB behaves like sunlight, not a direct measurement.
- Age range
- Pending exact source review
- Condition subtype
- Pending exact source review
- Severity or extent
- Pending exact source review
- Sample size
- Pending exact source review
- Geography and care setting
- Pending exact source review
- Skin tone or phototype
- Pending exact source review
- Race
- Pending exact source review
- Ethnicity
- Pending exact source review
- Body sites
- Pending exact source review
What that means for this page: This is explicitly gated as a safety claim, but exact population extraction is still pending. It cannot publish or support an estimate of individual risk until that review is complete.
Evidence behind this page
Sources
Each evidence badge opens the source and its limits. The full list stays available here.
- Phothera PhototherapyManufacturer document · Manufacturer, tier 4Independence not established
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports Phothera’s current first-party description of benefit checks, prior-authorization help, delivery, insured-patient assistance, discounted cash pricing and payment options for its devices.
What it does not support
It does not advertise a consumer rental, publish complete prices or terms, guarantee eligibility or coverage, or independently establish product value.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
- Zerigo Health, Inc.Manufacturer document · Manufacturer, tier 4Independence not established
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports Zerigo’s current first-party description of prescription, plan or employer access, maintenance, and confirmed-device-failure handling.
What it does not support
It does not call the program a conventional rental, publish a monthly price, minimum term, deposit or ownership-conversion schedule, guarantee access, or establish comparative benefit.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
- Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and VenereologyGuideline · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Relevant relationship disclosed
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: The journal is the publisher. This label refers to extensive author relationships disclosed for the recommendation, not to the journal itself.
What this source supports
Supports an expert-consensus map of established, off-label and developing Vitiligo treatment categories and makes clear that research is continuing.
What it does not support
It is an international consensus with extensive author relationships, not independent comparative proof, current U.S. regulatory status for every option or a personal treatment sequence.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
Protopic (tacrolimus) ointment: US prescribing information and Medication Guide (opens in a new tab)
DailyMed, U.S. National Library of MedicineRegulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Relevant relationship disclosed- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: The National Library of Medicine hosts DailyMed. The product company submits the label to FDA, so it is authoritative for product labeling but not independent efficacy evidence.
What this source supports
It establishes the US atopic-dermatitis indication, boxed warning, local effects, long-term-use precaution, and ultraviolet instructions for this product. Its mechanism-of-action section supports that tacrolimus binds FKBP-12 to block calcineurin phosphatase, preventing the T-cell activation that its boxed warning and local-effect data describe. Its local-adverse-reaction data supports burning in roughly 46-58% and itching in roughly 41-46% of studied patients, most often in the first few days and easing as treatment continues. Its Dosage and Administration section supports applying a thin layer twice daily and re-examining the patient if signs and symptoms do not improve within six weeks.
What it does not support
It does not approve tacrolimus for vitiligo or psoriasis, establish efficacy for either, or resolve off-label guideline discussion of supervised combinations. Its dosing and six-week re-examination window are stated for its approved atopic-dermatitis indication, not as a vitiligo-specific schedule.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
- DailyMed, U.S. National Library of MedicineRegulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Relevant relationship disclosed
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: The National Library of Medicine hosts DailyMed. The product company submits the label to FDA, so it is authoritative for product labeling but not independent efficacy evidence.
What this source supports
Supports the US atopic-dermatitis indication, boxed warning, application-site effects, long-term-use precaution and instructions to avoid ultraviolet treatment and minimize natural or artificial sunlight. This label itself is a generic pimecrolimus cream filing (packager Oceanside Pharmaceuticals, a division of Bausch Health US, LLC), not the original brand Elidel label, so it also supports that a generic pimecrolimus cream is currently marketed. Its Dosage and Administration section supports applying a thin layer twice daily and re-examining the patient if signs and symptoms persist beyond six weeks; its boxed warning separately supports that continuous long-term use should be avoided. Its adult 1-year active-comparator adverse-reaction table (328 pimecrolimus-treated subjects) supports application-site burning in about 25.9%, headache in about 25.4%, nasopharyngitis in about 7.6%, and influenza in about 9.8% of that adult trial population.
What it does not support
It does not approve pimecrolimus for vitiligo or psoriasis, establish efficacy for either, or resolve off-label guideline discussion of supervised combinations. Its dosing and six-week re-examination window, and its adult adverse-reaction percentages, are stated for its approved atopic-dermatitis indication and trial population, not as a vitiligo-specific schedule or vitiligo-trial safety rate.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
- British Journal of Dermatology (Thomas KS, et al.)Randomized trial · Clinical research, tier 2Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports a group-level benefit for the exact supervised topical-corticosteroid and home handheld-light combination studied in active limited vitiligo, alongside minority success, reactions and limited maintenance after treatment ended.
What it does not support
It does not create a general home plan, support other product-device combinations or predict an individual result. The topical-corticosteroid-alone arm used mometasone furoate 0.1% ointment, applied once daily on alternating weeks for up to 9 months. It supports 17% (20/119) reaching participant-reported treatment success at 9 months, and 3% (4/115) reaching the trial’s stricter blinded-assessed ≥75% repigmentation at 9 months. Skin thinning was reported in 2.5% (13/517) of participants across all trial groups, including one on placebo ointment. Over 40% of participants across all groups reported loss of treatment response by 21 months. It supports that participant-reported treatment success at 9 months was lower for patches on the hands and feet than on other body regions, without publishing an exact per-region percentage in its main results tables. The trial randomized 517 adults and children, aged over 5, with nonsegmental vitiligo covering about 10% or less of body surface area and at least one patch active in the prior 12 months, across 16 UK hospitals.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
- JAMA Dermatology (Bae JM, et al.)Systematic review · Clinical research, tier 2Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports the separate pooled repigmentation rates and participant counts the review reports for narrowband UVB and PUVA at 3, 6 and 12 months, and the narrowband UVB rates pooled by body region after at least 6 months. Each pooled figure rests on the subset of studies that reported that measure at that time, not on the full review. It also supports plainly labelled arithmetic complements of those reported rates.
What it does not support
The pooled arms are single-group, so they describe what happened to those groups, not what the light caused. The review planned an intention-to-treat count and kept people who stopped early where it could; otherwise it used the group described at the final assessment, so no pooled figure is guaranteed to cover every enrolled participant. It does not report how many people worsened during treatment, does not predict an individual course, and sets no device, schedule or dose.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
- DermNetPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that narrowband UVB works for vitiligo by immune suppression and stimulation of cytokines. Supports that a course of treatment for vitiligo continues across a period of 3 to 4 months before extending further, and continues until repigmentation is complete or for 1 to 2 years. Supports that the treatment schedule this source gives for vitiligo is less frequent than the schedule it gives for other skin conditions treated with the same light.
What it does not support
It is a general dermatology reference page, not a vitiligo-specific trial or guideline, and it sets no rule for any one reader’s exact schedule or device. Its exact session-frequency figures are not reproduced in this record; SteadySkin does not publish a session count or interval for any condition. It does not state a percentage of people who repigment on this schedule, and does not report side-effect rates specific to vitiligo.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
- British Journal of Dermatology (Eleftheriadou V, et al.)Guideline · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports the clinical history and assessment domains, evaluation of associated autoimmune conditions, its recommendation for thyroid function and antithyroid antibody screening, current classification context, treatment-option map, psychosocial assessment, medical photography and the limits of pediatric evidence. Its classification table defines mucosal vitiligo as the oral or genital mucosae. One mucosal site alone is filed as undetermined or unclassified. Its differential diagnosis table lists genital or extragenital lichen sclerosus among the conditions that can be mistaken for vitiligo. That table also lists eczema, psoriasis, lichen planus, pityriasis alba and piebaldism. It calls autoimmunity a contributor to the pathogenesis of vitiligo. It reports an earlier review finding a possible negative impact on intimacy and sexual functioning. It tells clinicians to discuss the psychosocial impact of living with the condition. R28 offers a skin camouflage visit to people who want one. R10 to R14 name potent or very potent topical steroids as the first choice, with a topical calcineurin-inhibitor cream as an option for the face. These are different creams with different proof behind them. R20 names narrowband UVB as the first light option. It says the skin often does better on the face and trunk than on hands and feet. It says there is not enough proof to use any one current pill alone for vitiligo that is not changing. R25 and Table 2 keep cell grafting for vitiligo that is not changing and did not respond to other care. They also say a doctor cannot always tell if the vitiligo has truly stopped changing.
What it does not support
It was designed for UK care and reviewed literature through May 2019; it does not establish a universal testing plan, prescribe an individual plan, or establish current US labeling or coverage. Its differential diagnosis table is a list, not a method a reader can apply to their own skin. It does not say how to tell any two of those conditions apart. It gives no figure for how often vitiligo affects genital skin.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
- British Journal of Dermatology (Goulden V, et al.)Guideline · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
It supports that traditional NB-UVB fluorescent lamps emit a narrow UVB band peaking around 311 nanometres. It backs wearing UV-protective goggles and keeping UV scatter off people nearby. It records the consent form naming goggles and the same clothing at each session. It also covers clinical uses, how it compares with other light treatments, safety limits including sunburn-type reactions, and the added safeguards home phototherapy needs.
What it does not support
It does not provide a personal treatment plan, approve a particular home setup, or replace the instructions for your own device. SteadySkin never reproduces its treatment schedules.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
- British Association of DermatologistsPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
It supports a plain-language explanation that NB-UVB uses a small part of the UVB spectrum, is used for conditions including psoriasis, eczema, and vitiligo, and is distinct from sunlight or a sunbed. It also supports what a unit asks of its own patients during a course. It asks them not to sunbathe or use a sunbed for the whole of it, and to reduce sun exposure so that skin does not burn. It asks them to report a medicine, a cream, or newly exposed skin such as a haircut. It asks them to arrive without perfume, deodorant, aftershave or other cosmetics, because some of those raise light sensitivity and can leave patchy discolouration for months. It carries the unit’s own account of repeated courses. It states that the full risk of narrowband UVB is not known, and that roughly one in ten people in the UK develop skin cancer. It states that a review becomes usual practice past a stated number of treatments, and that many treatments can bring the wrinkling and discolouration of photoageing.
What it does not support
It is patient education, not primary evidence for an efficacy claim. Its printed next review date was June 2025 and it has not been updated since June 2022. It is therefore used only for what it plainly states, and never as current guidance. It is written for a UK hospital unit whose nurses examine skin at every visit, so it sets no rule for a device used at home. Its numbers stay in this record rather than in the copy. Those are the sun protection factor and star rating it names, the hours it names, the treatment count that triggers a review, and the multiple by which it estimates lifetime risk. That multiple is stated there as an assumption that narrowband UVB behaves like sunlight, not as a measurement.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.