| Prevention and treatment of skin and nail infections using germicidal light -> Monitor Keywords |
|
|
 
Prevention and treatment of skin and nail infections using germicidal lightPrevention and treatment of skin and nail infections using germicidal light description/claimsThe Patent Description & Claims data below is from USPTO Patent Application 20080234786, Prevention and treatment of skin and nail infections using germicidal light. Brief Patent Description - Full Patent Description - Patent Application Claims
CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS
This application is a continuation in part of U.S. application Ser. No. 10/215,834, which claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application 60/355,088 with filing date of Feb. 11, 2002. BACKGROUND1. Field of Invention This invention relates to preventing and treating skin and nail infections using germicidal radiation to inactivate and kill organisms that cause such infections. 2. Background of the Invention The germicidal effects of certain types of light have been recognized for many years. As early as the late 1890's certain types of ultraviolet light were found to have a germicidal effect. However, the wavelengths of light found to be germicidal have very little power to penetrate which limited their usefulness in treating infections. The most germicidal band, labeled UVC and extending from 240 to 280 nm, is totally absorbed by the atmosphere before it reaches the Earth's surface. Published research indicates that UVC can only penetrate the skin about 0.1 mm. Although germicidal light was found useful to sterilize air or water and to treat hard surfaces such as laboratory benches, its lack of penetration made it appear unsuitable to treat skin and nail infections. Niels Finsen received the 1903 Nobel Prize in Medicine for his discovery that light in the ultraviolet region could be used to treat skin tuberculosis, a very serious disease at that time. The treatment as described in the 1903 Nobel Prize acceptance speech consisted of concentrating the rays of the sun and eliminating its longer heat producing rays or using a carbon arc lamp. The skin is exposed for an hour or so until it becomes red and inflamed. This treatment was repeated as necessary until the skin scarred over and then later grew in clear. The treatment was described as having no unpleasant effects, but was expensive, and required constant supervision. The light used had a very low percentage of UVC and it was thought that the main effect of the light used was to stimulate the body's natural defenses. It was thought that germicidal light could not effectively penetrate the skin to treat the infection but that the main purpose of the light was to stimulate the body's natural defenses. This type of treatment for skin tuberculosis and several other skin diseases continued through the 1950's but was eventually replaced by the use of antibiotics. Early use of ultraviolet light was much more of an art than a science. In the early 1900's science was just beginning to form its modern theory of the composition of light and the science of genetics was many decades off. Thus researchers did not have the theoretical knowledge of how germicidal light damages genetic material to guide them in their treatments. Early practitioners of phototherapy for the treatment of skin infections were aware of the germicidal effects of light but did not think they contributed significantly to UV phototherapy. In Ultra-Violet Radiation and Actinotherapy (Russel, 1933) it was noted that ‘Ultraviolet light is absorbed by the protoplasm of the organism, and in a culture, or on the surface of a wound, one bacterium will protect a second lying under it; so in a lesion like lupus very little beneficial therapeutic effect can be considered to be due to the bactericidal effects of the rays. It is due rather to the increased lymphocytosis in the part, and stimulation of cicatrisation.’ (Russel, 1933, pg. 288). The text also notes that ‘the absorption by the skin of very short wave-length, is very great, all rays shorter than 3000 angstroms [300 nm] being absorbed by a later of epidermis 0.1 mm in thickness’ (Russel, 1933, pg. 272-273). The lamps which were used to treat skin infections had at least 95% of their energy emitted at wavelengths over 300 nm and thus had very little energy in wavelengths considered germicidal. This compares to modern low pressure mercury germicidal lamps where 95% of light is emitted at 254 nm—almost the exact opposite of earlier lamps used to treat skin disorders. U.S. Pat. No. 1,856,969 by Reiter and Gabor in 1932 describes a type of phototherapy to modulate living tissue that was used as part of empirically based treatment of skin disorders. The patent describes the use of UV to stimulate the natural defenses of the body and includes a filter to prevent light less than 320 nm from reaching the skin since light below 320 nm was felt to be detrimental to treatment. This patent illustrates that most early UV therapy was focused on the stimulating effects of UV and not on its germicidal qualities since the wavelengths considered germicidal (less than 315 nm) were considered to be detrimental to treatment. Treatment of skin diseases continued on an empirical basis through the 1950's with a multiplicity of units being produced each with different approximated guidelines of how to best use them for various disorders and infections. The empirical basis of treatment of these disorders was based on judiciously applying ultraviolet light to cause erythema (redness) to develop. The treatment was then adjusted to bring about various degrees of sunburn depending on the disorder being treated. Mild erythema (slight redness) was assigned a value of E-1 while the most sever erythema (blistering and third degree burns) was assigned an E-4. The most serious infections often merited a treatment bringing about an E-4 erythema for a sustained period. The induced erythema was thought to stimulate the body's defenses, particularly increasing the bactericidal ability of the blood. Although this was the most prevalent theory of why this treatment was efficacious there was no absolute consensus. The lack of consensus with regard to how this type of treatment worked and the large number of lamps that were being marketed in the first half of the twentieth century was probably bewildering to many doctors. Nevertheless, in the absence of modern antibiotics, even the empirical use of ultraviolet light to treat skin infections. Electrotherapy and Actinotherapy; A Textbook for Student Physiotherapists authored by E. B. Clayton and published in 1952 (2nd edition) shows of the state of the art of phototherapy before use of modern antibiotics caused this form of treatment to lose favor. This 451 page textbook covers all aspects of phototherapy beginning with the theory, the type of equipment used, and treatment of various types including skin disorders. Portions of the treatment section for skin tuberculosis read as follows, “The Finsen-Lomholt water cooled carbon arc or the Kromayer lamp is employed. The latter has the disadvantage that its spectrum includes a quantity of abiotic rays which are not required and merely increase the superficial inflammation . . . . The initial exposure is commonly five times a fourth degree erythema.” (pgs. 413-414). This extract of the book notes that abiotic (germicidal) light is not considered helpful for treatment. It also shows that dosages for treatment were based on empirically derived rules of thumb related to how severe the produced erythema was. Although almost 100 pages are devoted to describing various treatments there is no mention of dosage in terms of the amount of energy applied nor is there mention of any specific wavelengths. Empirical use of ultraviolet light had a number of undesirable side effects including a wide spectrum of light including high amounts of UVB light now known to be carcinogenic. The relative amount of germicidal light was extremely low which made any possible benefit due to its inclusion very small and probably undetectable. Also, the cure rate was also much lower than can be expected with a well understood theory of how germicidal light inactivates organisms. Thus, when safer and more effective antibiotics were introduced in the 1950's the practice of empirically using ultraviolet light to treat skin infections was quickly abandoned by the medical profession in general. While ultraviolet light may still be used to empirically treat skin infections in isolated areas of the world its general use has been abandoned. There appears to have been no application of the recent advances in genetics, air handling, and water and wastewater disinfection to transform the use of germicidal light to scientifically treat skin infections. The present invention combines these advances in other fields to develop a novel and unique approach to scientifically treat skin and nail infections in a manner that increases the efficacy of treatment while minimizes the side effects of such treatments. It should be noted that there is no indication that this type of treatment was ever applied to treating nails. While the text discuss a number of different disorders affecting different parts of the body (including skin, nose, throat, anus, etc.) the mention of nails is not found in any text. This is understandable given the limited ability of nails to transmit light in the ultraviolet range and the fact that nail diseases in general are less life threatening than skin infections. With the discovery of DNA and RNA in the 1950's and the subsequent development of the science of genetics, scientists discovered that each cell contained a highly sophisticated code to permit the cell to reproduce. Later, it was found that certain kinds of ultraviolet light could damage this genetic material and prevent a cell from reproducing. This knowledge was applied in many different fields including water and wastewater treatment (where it was used to disinfect water), to sterilize surfaces, and to sterilize air. However, it was not applied to treat skin infections. This was perhaps due to several reasons including the following:
The widespread knowledge that UV cannot penetrate deeply made it a less than ideal candidate to treat an infection that may not be totally on the surface of the skin. Since it is well documented that light less than 300 nm cannot penetrate below the first 0.1 mm of the epidermis, its penetrating power was thought insufficient to treat infections.
Thank you for viewing the Prevention and treatment of skin and nail infections using germicidal light patent info. IP-related news and info Results in 0.10432 seconds Other interesting Feshpatents.com categories: Qualcomm , Schering-Plough , Schlumberger , Seagate , Siemens , Texas Instruments , 174 |
 * Protect your Inventions * US Patent Office filing 
PATENT INFO |
|
How KEYWORD MONITOR works... a FREE service from FreshPatents