Contact dermatitis · 2023
Shedding a light on the importance of photopatch testing: A 12-year experience in a dermatology unit.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Codeço Carlos, Alves Pedro Botelho, Figueiredo Ana Carolina, Flor Duarte, Gonçalo Margarida
Аннотация
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.
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.