1064-nm Nd:YAG laser as an antibiotic-sparing treatment option for inflammatory acne: a narrative review and evidence-informed practical treatment framework

INTRODUCTION

Despite increasing emphasis on antibiotic stewardship, systemic antibiotics remain a common component of care for inflammatory acne. Contemporary acne management is based on topical retinoids, benzoyl peroxide, topical and systemic antibiotics, hormonal therapies, and isotretinoin, with treatment selection guided by severity, morphology, patient preference, tolerability, pregnancy considerations, and risk of scarring.^1-3 However, prolonged or repeated antibiotic exposure is increasingly discouraged because of antimicrobial resistance, microbiome disruption, adverse effects, and the need for long-term stewardship.^4,5 Energy-based devices have therefore gained interest as adjunctive non-antibiotic interventions. Among these, the 1064-nm neodymium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet (Nd:YAG) laser is clinically attractive because of its penetration depth, relative epidermal melanin sparing compared with shorter wavelengths, procedural familiarity, and availability in many dermatologic practices. The purpose of this review is to evaluate 1064-nm Nd:YAG laser therapy as a potential adjunctive or antibiotic-sparing option for selected patients with inflammatory acne.

This framing requires caution. The current literature does not prove that 1064-nm Nd:YAG laser therapy replaces oral antibiotics, topical therapy, or isotretinoin. Rather, it suggests that non-antibiotic lesion reduction may help reduce reliance on antibiotics in selected clinical scenarios. This review therefore presents an evidence-informed practical treatment framework rather than a formal guideline or algorithm.

METHODS

A narrative PubMed-based review was performed. Searches combined terms for acne vulgaris, inflammatory acne, active acne, 1064 nm, Nd:YAG, long-pulsed laser, 650 usec, microsecond-domain laser, Q-switched laser, carbon suspension, antibiotic stewardship, antimicrobial resistance, skin of color, Fitzpatrick phototypes, isotretinoin, safety, relapse, follow-up, and competing technologies including 1726-nm lasers, pulsed dye laser, intense pulsed light, photodynamic therapy, and radiofrequency devices.

Eligible articles included randomized controlled trials, split-face studies, prospective and retrospective clinical studies, systematic reviews, narrative reviews, guideline documents, and mechanistic studies. Publications dealing exclusively with acne scars, post-acne erythema, hidradenitis suppurativa, acne keloidalis nuchae, pigmentary disorders, or non-acne indications were excluded from the core clinical analysis unless they were directly relevant to safety or contextual discussion. Because of heterogeneity in device settings, outcomes, comparators, and follow-up, no meta-analysis was attempted.

ANTIBIOTIC-SPARING RATIONALE

Antibiotic stewardship in acne is based on limiting systemic antibiotic duration, avoiding antibiotic monotherapy, using benzoyl peroxide when appropriate to reduce resistance pressure, and transitioning patients to non-antibiotic maintenance regimens.^1,2,4,5 A network meta-analysis of acne treatments reinforces that standard pharmacologic combinations remain central to evidence-based care, while procedural modalities vary in supporting evidence and comparability.³

The antibiotic-sparing rationale for 1064-nm Nd:YAG laser therapy is therefore indirect. If inflammatory lesion counts can be reduced without antimicrobial exposure, some patients may avoid initiating, extending, or repeating systemic antibiotics. However, no current 1064-nm Nd:YAG trial has prospectively measured cumulative antibiotic exposure, time to antibiotic initiation, or antibiotic-free remission as predefined endpoints. This limitation should be explicitly stated in any clinically oriented review.

MECHANISTIC CONSIDERATIONS

Acne pathogenesis involves follicular hyperkeratinization, sebum production, Cutibacterium acnes activity, and inflammation. Device-based therapies may influence acne through photothermal, photochemical, vascular, inflammatory, or sebaceous mechanisms. The 1064-nm wavelength penetrates relatively deeply and has lower epidermal melanin absorption than shorter visible wavelengths, which contributes to a generally favorable safety profile when conservative parameters and cooling are used.

For 1064-nm Nd:YAG treatment, the most defensible mechanisms are anti-inflammatory, vascular, and nonspecific photothermal effects. Claims of direct sebaceous gland destruction or durable sebosuppression should be made cautiously unless supported by protocol-specific data. This distinction is important because 1726-nm lasers more specifically target sebaceous lipids and have been developed around selective sebaceous photothermolysis.^20-25

The phrase '1064-nm Nd:YAG laser' is not a complete treatment descriptor. Microsecond-domain 650-usec systems, millisecond long-pulsed systems, Q-switched systems, and carbon-assisted protocols differ substantially in tissue interaction. Combining them without distinction risks misleading clinical translation.

CLINICAL EVIDENCE FOR 1064-NM ND:YAG LASER THERAPY

Table 1 summarizes key clinical studies. The strongest protocol-specific evidence comes from microsecond-domain 650-usec studies. Kesty and Goldberg conducted a double-blind randomized sham-controlled trial in 20 subjects with moderate-to-severe acne. Subjects received three treatments two weeks apart plus an additional session four weeks after the third treatment. The laser arm showed greater improvement than sham in Investigator global assessment, inflammatory lesion count, comedones, porphyrin score, and sebum score.⁶

Saedi et al conducted a prospective single-center study of a 650-microsecond 1064-nm Nd:YAG laser in subjects with Fitzpatrick skin types I to VI and mild, moderate, or severe facial acne. Subjects received five treatments at two-week intervals with follow-up at 30 and 90 days. The study reported rapid lesion-count reduction, high satisfaction, and no observed adverse events.⁷ Olugbade et al reviewed 225 patients treated with a 1064-nm Nd:YAG protocol and reported a median of three treatments to clearance, 48% clearance, limited adverse effects, and similar outcomes between white patients and patients with skin of color for most IGA-rated parameters.⁸ This study is clinically useful because of its size and real-world setting, but its retrospective design and concomitant therapies limit causal interpretation.

Millisecond long-pulsed 1064-nm Nd:YAG protocols have been evaluated in comparative and split-face studies. A comparative study with 595-nm pulsed dye laser found both modalities effective for inflammatory lesions and acne erythema.⁹ Other split-face studies compared long-pulsed Nd:YAG with intralesional botulinum toxin type A, platelet-rich plasma, and fractional CO₂ laser.^10-12 These studies support a procedural role for 1064-nm Nd:YAG in inflammatory acne, but the comparator heterogeneity prevents direct pooled conclusions.

Q-switched and carbon-assisted approaches should be interpreted separately. Jung et al evaluated a dual mode quasi-long pulse and Q-switched 1064-nm Nd:YAG protocol assisted by topical carbon suspension with clinical and histopathological assessment.¹³ A recent pilot split-face study compared Q-switched and long-pulsed fractional 1064-nm Nd:YAG as adjuncts to azithromycin; both reduced acne severity, but Q-switched treatment performed better in that study.¹⁴ Because systemic antibiotics were used, that trial supports adjunctive procedural efficacy rather than antibiotic-sparing monotherapy.

SAFETY AND SKIN OF COLOR

Safety is a major practical advantage claimed for 1064-nm Nd:YAG treatment, particularly in darker skin types. The 1064-nm wavelength is relatively melanin-sparing compared with shorter wavelengths, but wavelength alone does not determine safety. Fluence, pulse duration, repetition rate, spot size, cooling, treatment density, stacking, baseline inflammation, recent tanning, topical irritants, and post-treatment photoprotection are all clinically important.

The prospective 650-microsecond study included Fitzpatrick skin types I to VI and reported no adverse events.⁷ The retrospective 225-patient series included both white patients and patients with skin of color and reported adverse effects limited to flare-ups and dryness.⁸ However, actively inflamed acne lesions can be prone to post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation, especially in Fitzpatrick skin types IV to VI. A broader systematic review of nonablative lasers and energy-based devices in phototypes IV to VI supports the need for conservative settings and careful counselling.²⁶ Practical risk reduction should include conservative initial settings, avoidance of recent tanning, adequate epidermal cooling, avoidance of aggressive stacking, adjustment of irritating topicals around treatment, strict photoprotection, and early management of flare-ups. Cooling should be considered an essential treatment variable because contact, cryogen, and forced-air cooling influence epidermal protection and therapeutic delivery.

COMBINATION THERAPY

In most patients, 1064-nm Nd:YAG laser therapy should be integrated into multimodal acne care rather than used as an isolated intervention. Topical retinoids and benzoyl peroxide remain important for comedonal control, maintenance, and antibiotic-resistance mitigation.^1,2 Laser therapy may be considered when inflammatory lesions persist despite optimized topical care, when systemic antibiotics are poorly tolerated or undesirable, or when patients seek a non-antibiotic adjunct. Combination with isotretinoin requires individualized judgment. Historical concerns about procedural treatment during or soon after isotretinoin have been reassessed, and a systematic review of energy-based devices plus isotretinoin suggests that blanket delays are not uniformly supported by current evidence.²⁷ Nevertheless, this evidence is not specific to every acne laser protocol, and ablative or high-injury procedures require separate risk assessment.

DURABILITY, MAINTENANCE AND RELAPSE

Short-term improvement after 1064-nm Nd:YAG treatment is supported by several studies, but durability data are less robust. Saedi et al reported maintained improvement at 90 days after the final treatment, and Olugbade et al reported a six-month follow-up median IGA score of almost clear.^7,8 Comparative studies often have shorter follow-up periods, and recurrence is inconsistently defined. The practical conclusion is that 1064-nm Nd:YAG may provide improvement beyond the immediate treatment series, but long-term remission cannot be assumed. Patients should be counseled that maintenance topical therapy remains important and that procedural maintenance sessions may be required, particularly in chronic or hormonally influenced inflammatory acne.

COMPARISON WITH COMPETING TECHNOLOGIES

Competing device-based therapies include 1726-nm sebaceous-selective lasers, pulsed dye laser, intense pulsed light, photodynamic therapy, and radiofrequency-based devices. The 1726-nm laser is the most relevant comparator because its target and development pathway align more directly with selective sebaceous photothermolysis.^20-25 Clinical studies of 1726-nm systems report improvement in moderate-to-severe acne across skin types, with follow-up extending to at least 26 weeks and one-year multicenter data.^22-25

Compared with 1726 nm, 1064 nm is less sebaceous-selective but may be more widely available and familiar in procedural dermatology. Pulsed dye laser offers stronger vascular targeting but has shallower penetration and parameter-dependent purpura risk. Intense pulsed light is versatile but operator-dependent and more challenging in darker skin types. Photodynamic therapy has comparatively strong evidence among light-based approaches but may involve pain, erythema, crusting, downtime, and dyspigmentation. Radiofrequency-based approaches may be useful in selected acne and acne-scar phenotypes but act through different mechanisms.

EVIDENCE-INFORMED PRACTICAL TREATMENT FRAMEWORK

The proposed framework is not a guideline. It is a pragmatic clinical structure for selected patients with inflammatory acne (Figure 1). Candidates may include patients with mild-to-moderate inflammatory acne who wish to reduce antibiotic exposure, patients with poor tolerance of systemic antibiotics, patients with contraindications or reluctance toward systemic therapy, and patients with persistent inflammatory lesions despite optimized topical care.

Patients with severe nodulocystic acne, acne fulminans, rapidly scarring disease, marked systemic symptoms, or clear indication for isotretinoin should be evaluated according to guideline-based care rather than diverted into repeated laser monotherapy. Similarly, patients with recent tanning, uncontrolled barrier disruption, unrealistic expectations, inability to adhere to photoprotection, or inability to attend serial visits may be poor candidates.

A practical sequence is: confirm acne subtype and severity; optimize non-antibiotic topical therapy; assess the need for systemic therapy; consider 1064-nm Nd:YAG as an adjunctive or potential antibiotic-sparing option; use conservative initial parameters; counsel regarding flare, dryness, erythema, discomfort, post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation, cost, and maintenance; reassess after three to four sessions using lesion counts, standardized photographs, and patient-reported tolerability; and continue maintenance therapy after improvement.

LIMITATIONS OF CURRENT EVIDENCE

The current evidence base is promising but limited. Many studies are small, single-center, split-face, open-label, or retrospective. Sham-controlled data are limited. Protocols vary widely in pulse duration, fluence, spot size, repetition rate, cooling, number of passes, treatment interval, and concomitant therapy. Outcome measures are inconsistent, and validated acne-specific quality-of-life instruments are rarely used.

The most important limitation for this manuscript's central premise is that antibiotic-sparing outcomes have not been prospectively tested. Future studies should measure cumulative systemic antibiotic exposure, time to antibiotic initiation, antibiotic-free remission, recurrence, maintenance requirements, adverse events by Fitzpatrick skin type, and cost-effectiveness. Device dependency is another major limitation; parameters from one 1064-nm platform cannot be assumed to transfer safely or effectively to another device.

CONCLUSION

1064-nm Nd:YAG laser therapy is a plausible adjunctive and potential antibiotic-sparing procedural option for selected patients with inflammatory acne. Its most defensible role is not as a replacement for guideline-based pharmacologic care, but as part of individualized multimodal management when reducing antibiotic exposure is clinically desirable. The literature supports improvement in inflammatory acne across several 1064-nm protocols, with the strongest protocol-specific data for 650-usec microsecond-domain treatment and additional support from long-pulsed comparative studies.

Clinical use should remain conservative and transparent. Microsecond-domain, long-pulsed, Q-switched, and carbon-assisted protocols should not be conflated. Patient selection, skin phototype, cooling, post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation prevention, concomitant topical care, cost, and maintenance needs must be addressed. Future controlled studies should directly evaluate antibiotic-sparing endpoints before stronger claims can be made.

Funding: No funding sources

Conflict of interest: None declared

Ethical approval: Not required

REFERENCES

1. 1. Reynolds RV, Yeung H, Cheng CE, Cook-Bolden F, Desai SR, Druby K, et al. Guidelines of care for the management of acne vulgaris. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2024;90(5):1006.e1-30.
2. 2. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Acne vulgaris: management. NICE guideline NG198. London: NICE, 2021. Available at: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng198. Accessed on 18 May 2026.
3. 3. Mavranezouli I, Daly CH, Welton NJ, Deshpande S, Berg L, Bromham N, et al. A systematic review and network meta-analysis of topical pharmacological, oral pharmacological, physical and combined treatments for acne vulgaris. Br J Dermatol. 2022;187(5):639-49.
4. 4. Barbieri JS, Spaccarelli N, Margolis DJ, James WD. Approaches to limit systemic antibiotic use in acne: systemic alternatives, emerging topical therapies, dietary modification, and laser and light-based treatments. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019;80(2):538-49.
5. 5. Dessinioti C, Katsambas A. Antibiotics and antimicrobial resistance in acne: epidemiological trends and clinical practice considerations. Yale J Biol Med. 2022;95(4):429-43.
6. 6. Kesty K, Goldberg DJ. 650 usec 1064 nm Nd:YAG laser treatment of acne: a double-blind randomized control study. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2020;19(9):2295-300.
7. 7. Saedi N, Griffin T, Kelly S. Treatment of mild to severe acne vulgaris with a 650-microsecond 1064-nm Nd:YAG laser. J Drugs Dermatol. 2024;23(11):957-64.
8. 8. Olugbade ID, Petty AC, Imahiyerobo-Ip J. Treatment of acne vulgaris with a 650-ms, 1064-nm Nd:YAG laser: a retrospective study. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2025;24(2):e16711.
9. 9. Chalermsuwiwattanakan N, Rojhirunsakool S, Kamanamool N, Kanokrungsee S, Udompataikul M. The comparative study of efficacy between 1064-nm long-pulsed Nd:YAG laser and 595-nm pulsed dye laser for the treatment of acne vulgaris. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2021;20(7):2108-15.
10. 10. Ibrahim AM, Omar GAB, Hamdino M. Long-pulsed Nd:YAG laser (1064 nm) versus intralesional botulinum toxin type A in acne vulgaris therapy: a split-face study. Int J Dermatol. 2023;62(6):822-30.
11. 11. Moftah NH, Mansour AM, Ibrahim SMA. Clinical evaluation of efficacy of intralesional platelet-rich plasma injection versus 1064 nm long-pulsed Neodymium:YAG laser in the treatment of inflammatory acne vulgaris in adolescent and post-adolescent patients: a prospective randomized split-face comparative study. Lasers Med Sci. 2022;37(5):2471-78.
12. 12. Hammoda TM, Elmetwally AS, Ibrahim SM, Mohsen NA. Fractional CO2 laser versus 1064-nm long-pulsed Nd:YAG laser in treatment of acne vulgaris: a randomized split-face study. Lasers Med Sci. 2023;38(1):189.
13. 13. Jung JY, Hong JS, Ahn CH, Yoon JY, Kwon HH, Suh DH. Prospective randomized controlled clinical and histopathological study of acne vulgaris treated with dual mode of quasi-long pulse and Q-switched 1064-nm Nd:YAG laser assisted with a topically applied carbon suspension. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2012;66(4):626-33.
14. 14. Maghsoodloo D, Jafarzadeh A, Ghassemi M, Sadeghzadeh-Bazargan A, Goodarzi A. Comparison of the efficacy of Q-switched versus long-pulsed fractional 1064 nm Nd:YAG laser in the treatment of active facial acne: a pilot, double-blind, randomized, controlled, split-face study. Health Sci Rep. 2026;9(4):e72354.
15. 15. Li MK, Liu C, Hsu JTS. The use of lasers and light devices in acne management: an update. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2021;22(6):785-800.
16. 16. Jafarzadeh A, Heidari S, Omid R, Goodarzi A. Systematic review of vascular lasers for the treatment of inflammatory active acne vulgaris. Lasers Med Sci. 2025;40(1):168.
17. 17. Wiznia LE, Stevenson ML, Nagler AR. Laser treatments of active acne. Lasers Med Sci. 2017;32(7):1647-58.
18. 18. Haedersdal M, Togsverd-Bo K, Wulf HC. Evidence-based review of lasers, light sources and photodynamic therapy in the treatment of acne vulgaris. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2008;22(3):267-78.
19. 19. Ingram JR, Grindlay DJC, Williams HC. Management of acne vulgaris: an evidence-based update. Clin Exp Dermatol. 2010;35(4):351-4.
20. 20. Pulumati A, Chen Y, Leu S, Zachary CB. Targeting sebaceous glands: a review of selective photothermolysis for acne vulgaris treatment. Arch Dermatol Res. 2024;316(7):356.
21. 21. Sakamoto FH, Doukas AG, Farinelli WA, Tannous ZS, Anderson RR. Selective photothermolysis to target sebaceous glands: theoretical estimation of parameters and preliminary results using a free electron laser. Lasers Surg Med. 2012;44(2):175-83.
22. 22. Scopelliti MG, Kothare A, Karavitis M. A novel 1726-nm laser system for safe and effective treatment of acne vulgaris. Lasers Med Sci. 2022;37(9):3639-47.
23. 23. Goldberg D, Kothare A, Doucette M, Karavitis M, Scopelliti M. Selective photothermolysis with a novel 1726 nm laser beam: a safe and effective solution for acne vulgaris. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2023;22(2):486-96.
24. 24. Alexiades M, Kothare A, Goldberg D, Dover JS. Novel 1726 nm laser demonstrates durable therapeutic outcomes and tolerability for moderate-to-severe acne across skin types. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2023;89(4):703-10.
25. 25. Goldberg D, Ronan S, Bhatia AC, Dhawan S, Green JB, Kilmer SL, et al. Safe and effective acne treatment across skin types with a 1726-nm sebum-selective laser: one-year data from a prospective multicenter study. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2026;94(2):244-53.
26. 26. Hu S, Atmakuri M, Rosenberg J. Adverse events of nonablative lasers and energy-based therapies in subjects with Fitzpatrick skin phototypes IV to VI: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Aesthet Surg J. 2022;42(6):NP394-403.
27. 27. Xu Y, Wang H, Guo L, Hamblin MR, Wen X. Combinations of energy-based devices plus isotretinoin for management of acne and acne scars: a systematic review. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2024;23(10):3090-101.
28. 28. Handler MZ, Bloom BS, Goldberg DJ. Energy-based devices in treatment of acne vulgaris. Dermatol Surg. 2016;42(5):573-85.