Vitiligo
Conditions
Keywords
Dermatology, Microneedling, NB-UVB, Secretome, Vitiligo
Brief summary
The goal of this clinical trial is to analyze the effectiveness of SM-hUCMSC secretome administered via microneedling and intradermal microinjection as adjuvant therapy to NB-UVB, compared with NB-UVB alone, in terms of repigmentation, onset of improvement, safety, patient satisfaction, and vitiligo recurrence. The main questions it aims to answer are: * Are there differences in the level of vitiligo lesion repigmentation among the secretome therapy via microneedling, intradermal microinjection, and NB-UVB phototherapy groups? * Are there differences in the time to onset of repigmentation among the treatment groups? What are the safety profiles and adverse events associated with each treatment modality? * Are there differences in patient satisfaction and quality of life after undergoing each therapy? * Are there differences in vitiligo recurrence rates during the follow-up period among the treatment groups? Participants will be allocated into three groups as follows: * Group A receives NB-UVB combined with microneedling and topical 10% secretome. * Group B receives NB-UVB combined with intradermal secretome injection. * Group C receives NB-UVB alone. The intervention period lasts 12 weeks, with follow-up until week 24.
Detailed description
This study aims to analyze the effectiveness of SM-hUCMSC secretome administered via microneedling and intradermal microinjection as adjuvant therapy to NB-UVB, compared with NB-UVB alone, in terms of repigmentation, onset of improvement, safety, patient satisfaction, and vitiligo recurrence. This quasi-experimental three-group study involves patients with nonsegmental vitiligo who meet the inclusion criteria at the Precious Me Clinic, Serpong. * Group A receives NB-UVB combined with microneedling and topical 10% secretome. * Group B receives NB-UVB combined with intradermal secretome injection. * Group C receives NB-UVB alone. The intervention lasts for 12 weeks with follow-up until week 24. Assessments are conducted using the Vitiligo Area Scoring Index (VASI), onset of repigmentation, Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), Patient Global Assessment, adverse event monitoring, and standardized dermatologic photographic documentation. Data analysis is performed using ANOVA or Kruskal-Wallis tests, Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, and proportion tests as appropriate.
Interventions
OTHERNB-UVB combined with microneedling and topical 10% secretome
Group A receives NB-UVB combined with microneedling and topical 10% secretome.
OTHERreceives NB-UVB combined with intradermal secretome injection
Group B receives NB-UVB combined with intradermal secretome injection
DRUGNB-UVB alone
Group C receives NB-UVB alone
Sponsors
Yohanes Firmansyah, dr, MH, MM
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 60 Years
Healthy volunteers
No
Inclusion criteria
* Patients with a diagnosis of non-segmental vitiligo (established by a dermatologist). * Age 18-60 years. * Fitzpatrick skin types III-V. * Stable vitiligo lesions for at least 6 months (no new lesions and no lesion expansion \>10% of body surface area within the past 6 months). * Total lesion involvement of 1-20% body surface area (BSA). * Willing to comply with the full course of therapy and all scheduled follow-up visits during the study. * Provision of written informed consent.
Exclusion criteria
* Segmental, universal, or other vitiligo types that are difficult to standardize (e.g., lesions limited to the genital area). * Currently receiving or having received within the past 3 months: * Systemic immunomodulatory or immunosuppressive therapy (e.g., systemic corticosteroids, cyclosporine, methotrexate, JAK inhibitors, etc.). Other phototherapy modalities (e.g., PUVA, excimer laser) within the past 3 months. * History of keloid formation or hypertrophic scarring at the treatment sites. * Active infection at the lesion sites (bacterial, viral, or fungal) or other skin diseases that may interfere with pigmentation assessment. * Pregnancy or breastfeeding. * History of skin cancer, lupus, or other photosensitive disorders. * Severe allergy to secretome components or gel excipients (if known). * Uncontrolled systemic diseases (e.g., heart failure, renal failure, active systemic autoimmune disease) that may compromise follow-up compliance.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Percentage of Patients Achieving ≥50% Repigmentation Assessed by Vitiligo Area Scoring Index (VASI) | Baseline, Week 4, Week 8, Week 12 (primary endpoint), and Week 24 (follow-up) | The primary outcome is the proportion of patients achieving at least 50% repigmentation of target vitiligo lesions, measured using the Vitiligo Area Scoring Index (VASI). Repigmentation will be calculated as the percentage reduction in depigmented area compared to baseline. Assessment will be performed by blinded dermatologists using standardized clinical evaluation and validated scoring methods. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Change in VASI Score from Baseline | Baseline, Week 4, Week 8, Week 12, Week 24 | The absolute change in VASI score (points) from baseline to each follow-up visit will be evaluated. VASI quantifies both the extent of vitiligo involvement and degree of depigmentation. Lower scores indicate clinical improvement. |
| Time to Onset of Repigmentation | Up to Week 12 | Time (in weeks) from initiation of treatment to the first clinically observable repigmentation (≥10% repigmentation or perifollicular repigmentation), assessed by dermatologists based on clinical examination and standardized dermatological photography. |
| Change in Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) Score | Baseline, Week 12, Week 24 | Quality of life will be assessed using the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) questionnaire. The outcome will be expressed as the change in DLQI score (points) from baseline, with lower scores indicating improved quality of life. |
| Patient Satisfaction Measured by Likert Scale | Week 12 and Week 24 | Patient satisfaction will be assessed using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied). The outcome will be reported as mean satisfaction score. |
| Patient Global Assessment (PGA) Score | Week 12 and Week 24 | Clinical improvement as perceived by patients will be evaluated using the Patient Global Assessment (PGA) scale (0-4), where higher scores indicate greater perceived improvement. |
Countries
Indonesia
Contacts
CONTACTSukmawati Tansil Tan, Dr.
CONTACTYohanes Firmansyah, MD
PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATORSukmawati Tansil Tan
Tarumanagara University
STUDY_DIRECTORYohanes Firmansyah
Universitas Tarumanagara
STUDY_CHAIRMichael Jansen Politan
Precious Me Clinic
Outcome results
None listed