Intranasal versus Intravenous Light Therapies
It is necessary to compare the differences between the Intranasal Light Therapy and Intravenous (or Intravascular) Light Therapy. Both modalities are intended to irradiate the blood in the body’s circulatory system to achieve positive health outcomes. Scientifically, the effect should be the same, and if found to be so, all the findings from clinical studies that have been conducted with the Intravenous method would also be applicable to our Intranasal method.
Indeed, published investigations into this comparison have found no significant difference between the two methods. One of these studies is that carried out by Dou et al . They compared the two different methods for patients with stroke and/or traumatic brain injury and found no significant difference. The 2003 study randomly divided 96 patients that were impaired from stroke or traumatic brain injury into two groups. One group of 50 patients were treated with the intranasal method and the other were treated with the intravenous method. The team used an intranasal device with 650 nM in wavelength and 2.5 mW of power for 30 minutes. These are around the specifications used by our own laser-based device. The treatments were made once a day for 5 days as one session.
In total they conducted 2 sessions with a 2-day break in between. In both cases, they found that the cholesterol, triglyceride, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and hematocrit were significantly reduced. Furthermore, Fugl Meyer movement scale and Barthel index scores increased significantly, and the damaged areas in the brain were significantly reduced.
There was no significant difference in the outcomes of the two groups.
In 2005 a similar study was conducted by Xiao et al . In this study, they used a single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) for brain infusion imaging to study the changes in regional cerebral blood flow (rCBF) and brain blood flow function change rate (BFCR%). They found that the ratio of local rCBF versus whole brain rCBF had increased. BFCR% also increased in the treated side of the brain whereas no change was found in the untreated side.
In this study, they also found that there was no significant difference in the group that was treated with the intranasal method versus the intravenous method.
In 2005, Zhao et al  also tested the difference between the two treatment methods. They randomly divided 99 stroke patients into 3 groups: 30 in a drugs-only group, 33 patients in a intranasal+drugs group, and 36 patients in a intravenous+drugs group. The patients were treated for 30 minutes daily. By the 5th day, they found that the leukocyte adhesion rate and the concentration of serum soluble intercellular adhesion molecule-1 had decreased for the groups that had incorporated either the intranasal or intravenous methods. The group that was only treated with the drugs saw the same outcome only on the 10th day.
In this study too, there was no significant difference between the intranasal+drugs group and the intravenous+drugs group.
In summary, the expected outcome would be the same whether one is subject to our intranasal method or the intravenous method. Clearly, the intranasal method would be preferred for the order of difference in convenience and cost. No study has been found to suggest that the intravenous method is superior in expected outcome.
With these findings, we can now refer to the numerous clinical studies that have been carried out over the decades (since 1981) using the intravenous light therapy method, which is often referred to “intravenous blood irradiation”, “intravascular blood irradiation”, “intravenous laser blood irradiation” or a number of variations to these terms.
1. Dou Z, Hu X, Zhu H (2003). The effects of two kinds of laser irradiation on patients with brain lesions. Chinese Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 25(2): 86-88 (in Chinese).
2. Xiao X, Guo Y, Chu X, Jia S, Zheng X, Zhou C. (2005). Effects of low power irradiation in nasal cavity on cerebral blood flow perfusion of patients with brain infarction. Chinese Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 27(7): 418-450 (in Chinese).
3. Zhou Y, Zhu W (2005). Influence of laser therapy via nasal cavity on the CD antigen of peripheral lymphocytes in patients with cerebral embolism. Journal of Binzhou Medical College. 28(2): 95-96 (in Chinese).
4. Liu CY, Zhu P (Ed) (2009). Intranasal Low Intensity Laser Therapy. Beijing: People’s Military Medical Press.