دورية أكاديمية
أعرض في EDS

Shedding a light on the importance of photopatch testing: A 12-year experience in a dermatology unit.

التفاصيل البيبلوغرافية
العنوان: Shedding a light on the importance of photopatch testing: A 12-year experience in a dermatology unit.
المؤلفون: Codeço C; Occupational Medicine, Instituto Português de Oncologia, Coimbra, Portugal., Alves PB; Allergy and Clinical Immunology Unit, Centro Hospitalar Universitário de Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal., Figueiredo AC; Dermatology Unit, Centro Hospitalar e Universitário de Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal., Flor D; Dermatology Unit, Centro Hospitalar e Universitário de Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal., Gonçalo M; Dermatology Unit, Centro Hospitalar e Universitário de Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal.; Coimbra Institute for Clinical and Biomedical Research (iCBR), Faculty of Medicine, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal.; Dermatology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal.
المصدر: Contact dermatitis [Contact Dermatitis] 2023 Jun; Vol. 88 (6), pp. 438-445. Date of Electronic Publication: 2023 Mar 01.
نوع المنشور: Journal Article
اللغة: English
بيانات الدورية: Publisher: Wiley Country of Publication: England NLM ID: 7604950 Publication Model: Print-Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1600-0536 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 01051873 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Contact Dermatitis Subsets: MEDLINE
أسماء مطبوعة: Publication: <2005-> : Oxford : Wiley
Original Publication: Copenhagen, Munksgaard.
مواضيع طبية MeSH: Dermatology* , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact*/complications , Dermatitis, Photoallergic*/diagnosis , Dermatitis, Photoallergic*/etiology, Humans ; Retrospective Studies ; Allergens/adverse effects ; Sunscreening Agents/adverse effects ; Patch Tests/methods
مستخلص: Background: Photopatch testing has been standardized for diagnosing photoallergic contact dermatitis but is still infrequently used.
Objectives: To characterize photopatch test (PPT) results and their clinical relevance.
Methods: We collected retrospective data from patients photopatch tested in our Dermatology Unit (2010-2021), using the European PPT 'baseline' series, other allergens, and patient's own products, when appropriate.
Results: Out of 223 patients, 75 patients (33.6%) were reactive with 124 positive PPT reactions, considered relevant in 56/223 patients (25.1%) and in 72/124 reactions (58.1%). Most reactions were caused by topical drugs (n = 33; 45.8%), such as ketoprofen or promethazine, and 7 (9.8%) by systemic drugs, such as hydrochlorothiazide and fenofibrate. 'Classical' ultraviolet filters were responsible for six positive PPT reactions whereas there was only three relevant PPT to the 'newer' UV filters. Patients' sunscreens/cosmetics or plant extracts caused 10 positive PPT each. Additional patch test reactions were observed, mostly to Tinosorb® M.
Conclusion: Contrary to the trend in ACD, most positive PPT reactions were caused by topical drugs, outweighing ultraviolet filters and cosmetics. We stress the low reactivity to the 'newer' UV filters included in the PPT series. PPT was occasionally positive in systemic drug photosensitivity, but overall PPT reactivity was low.
(© 2023 The Authors. Contact Dermatitis published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)
References: Gonçalo M. Phototoxic and photoallergic reactions. In: Johansen JD, Mahler V, Lepoittevin J-P, Frosch PJ, eds. Contact Dermatitis. 6th ed. Springer International Publishing; 2021:365-390.
Gonçalo M. Photopatch testing. In: Johansen JD, Mahler V, Lepoittevin J-P, Frosch PJ, eds. Contact Dermatitis. 6th ed. Springer International Publishing; 2021:593-608.
Bruynzeel DP, Ferguson J, Andersen K, et al. Photopatch testing: a consensus methodology for Europe. J Eur Acad Dermatology Venereol. 2004;18(6):679-682.
Gonçalo M, Ferguson J, Bonevalle A, et al. Photopatch testing: recommendations for a European photopatch test baseline series. Contact Dermatitis. 2013;68(4):239-243.
Kerr AC et al. A European multicentre photopatch test study. Br J Dermatol. 2012;166(5):1002-1009.
Cardoso J, Canelas MM, Gonçalo M, Figueiredo A. Photopatch testing with an extended series of photoallergens: a 5-year study. Contact Dermatitis. 2009;60(6):325-329.
Schauder S, Ippen H. Contact and photocontact sensitivity to sunscreens. Contact Dermatitis. 1997;37(5):221-232.
Neumann NJ, Hölzle E, Plewig G, et al. Photopatch testing: the 12-year experience of the German, Austrian, and Swiss photopatch test group. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2000;42(2 Pt 1):183-192.
Gonçalo M, Ruas E, Figueiredo A, Gonçalo S. Contact and photocontact sensitivity to sunscreens. Contact Dermatitis. 1995;33(4):278-279.
Subiabre-Ferrer D, Esteve-Martínez A, Blasco-Encinas R, Sierra-Talamantes C, Pérez-Ferriols A, Zaragoza-Ninet V. European photopatch test baseline series: a 3-year experience. Contact Dermatitis. 2019;80(1):5-8.
Valbuena Mesa MC, Hoyos Jiménez EV. Photopatch testing in Bogota (Colombia): 2011-2013. Contact Dermatitis. 2016;74(1):11-17.
Utrera-Busquets M, Córdoba S, Borbujo-Martínez J. Eccema unilateral del dorso de la mano. Actas Dermosifiliogr. 2014;105(9):884-885.
Giomi B, Difonzo EM, Lotti L, Massi D, Francalanci S. Allergic and photoallergic conditions from unusual chlorpromazine exposure: report of three cases. Int J Dermatol. 2011;50(10):1276-1278.
de la Cuadra-Oyanguren J, Pérez-Ferriols A, Lecha-Carrelero M, et al. Results and assessment of Photopatch testing in Spain: towards a new standard set of Photoallergens. Actas Dermo-Sifiliográficas (English Ed). 2007;98(2):96-101.
Gilissen L, Goossens A. Frequency and trends of contact allergy to and iatrogenic contact dermatitis caused by topical drugs over a 25-year period. Contact Dermatitis. 2016;75(5):290-302.
Hu Y, Wang D, Shen Y, Tang H. Photopatch testing in Chinese patients over 10 years. Dermatitis. 2016;27(3):137-142.
Foti C, Bonamonte D, Conserva A, et al. Allergic and Photoallergic contact dermatitis from Ketoprofen: evaluation of cross-Reactivities by a combination of Photopatch testing and computerized conformational analysis. Curr Pharm des. 2008;14(27):2833-2839.
Girardin P, Vigan M, Humbert P, Aubin F. Cross-reactions in patch testing with ketoprofen, fragrance mix and cinnamic derivatives. Contact Dermatitis. 2006;55(2):126-128.
Canelas MM, Cardoso JC, Gonçalo M, Figueiredo A. Photoallergic contact dermatitis from benzydamine presenting mainly as lip dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis. 2010;63(2):85-88.
Calvão J, Figueiredo C, Gonçalo M. Patch testing in fixed drug eruptions: a 12-year retrospective study. J Eur Acad Dermatology Venereol. 2022;36(10):e770-e772.
Cariou C, Droitcourt C, Osmont MN, et al. Photodermatitis from topical phenothiazines: a case series. Contact Dermatitis. 2020;83(1):19-24.
Martínez-Doménech A, García-Legaz Martínez M, Ferrer-Guillén B, et al. Allergic and photoallergic contact dermatitis to chlorpromazine. Australas J Dermatol. 2020;61(3):1503-1504.
Liuti F, Borrego L. Contact dermatitis caused by Tinosorb® M: the importance of pach testing with pure methylene bis-benzotriazolyl tetramethylbutylphenol. Contact Dermatitis. 2015;73(3):192-193.
de Groot AC, van Zuuren EJ, Hissink D. Contact allergy to Tinosorb® M: recommendations for diagnostic improvement. Contact Dermatitis. 2014;70(4):251-254.
Pereira N, Coutinho I, Andrade P, Gonçalo M. The UV filter Tinosorb M, containing Decyl glucoside, is a frequent cause of allergic contact dermatitis. Dermatitis. 2013;24(1):41-43.
Andersen KE, Goossens A. Decyl glucoside contact allergy from a sunscreen product. Contact Dermatitis. 2006;54(6):349-350.
Snyder M, Turrentine JE, Cruz PD. Photocontact dermatitis and its clinical mimics: an overview for the allergist. Clin Rev Allergy Immunol. 2019;56(1):32-40.
فهرسة مساهمة: Keywords: Tinosorb® M; UV filters; drug photosensitivity; fenofibrate; ketoprofen; photoallergic contact dermatitis; photopatch testing
المشرفين على المادة: 0 (Allergens)
0 (Sunscreening Agents)
تواريخ الأحداث: Date Created: 20230222 Date Completed: 20230508 Latest Revision: 20230508
رمز التحديث: 20240628
DOI: 10.1111/cod.14297
PMID: 36807918
قاعدة البيانات: MEDLINE
الوصف
تدمد:1600-0536
DOI:10.1111/cod.14297