Contact dermatitis · 2009
Photopatch testing with an extended series of photoallergens: a 5-year study.
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.
Cardoso José Carlos, Canelas Maria Miguel, Gonçalo Margarida, Figueiredo Américo
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: We conducted a retrospective study (2003-07) evaluating the results of photopatch tests (PPTs) performed with an extended series with the objective of determining the main photoallergens in our region and whether they would be detected by a recently recommended baseline PPT series.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: 83 patients (58 females/25 males, mean age 54.8 years) were tested with a photoallergen series, and among these, 30 were also tested with a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) series, irradiated at D2 with 5 J/cm(2) ultraviolet A (UVA).
RESULTS: Thirty-six of 83 patients (43.3%) had at least one positive reaction, with 21 (25.3%) reacting in the photoallergen series. The main relevant reactions were as follows: 10 to ultraviolet filters (benzophenone-3 and benzophenone-4, 3 patients each), 7 to promethazine, and 2 to chlorpromazine. Twenty of 30 patients tested (70%) had a relevant positive PPT to an NSAID, 9 to piroxicam because of systemic photosensitivity, 8 to benzydamine from a topical gel or oral solution, and 2 to ketoprofen.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results are discordant with most recently published studies because of the particularities of the population studied and to regional prescribing habits. Therefore, apart from the recommended baseline series of photoallergens, other substances must be tested according to regional peculiarities.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: 83 patients (58 females/25 males, mean age 54.8 years) were tested with a photoallergen series, and among these, 30 were also tested with a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) series, irradiated at D2 with 5 J/cm(2) ultraviolet A (UVA).
RESULTS: Thirty-six of 83 patients (43.3%) had at least one positive reaction, with 21 (25.3%) reacting in the photoallergen series. The main relevant reactions were as follows: 10 to ultraviolet filters (benzophenone-3 and benzophenone-4, 3 patients each), 7 to promethazine, and 2 to chlorpromazine. Twenty of 30 patients tested (70%) had a relevant positive PPT to an NSAID, 9 to piroxicam because of systemic photosensitivity, 8 to benzydamine from a topical gel or oral solution, and 2 to ketoprofen.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results are discordant with most recently published studies because of the particularities of the population studied and to regional prescribing habits. Therefore, apart from the recommended baseline series of photoallergens, other substances must be tested according to regional peculiarities.