[Indoor tanning: motivations and beliefs among users and non-users in the population of Lille (Northern France)]. / Cabines de bronzage : étude des motivations et croyances des utilisateurs et non-utilisateurs dans la population lilloise.

BACKGROUND: Uncontrolled use of tanning beds is a major public health problem. The role of UV in skin carcinogenesis has in fact been clearly demonstrated. AIMS: The main purpose of the study was to assess the motivations and beliefs of the population concerning the use of indoor tanning. The secondary objectives were to compare the knowledge of users and non-users and to screen for addiction criteria among users. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a transversal descriptive study conducted between April and June 2013 in Lille town center. The motivations of the participants were determined using a multiple-choice questionnaire. A Likert scale was used to assess beliefs and an m-CAGE questionnaire was used to screen for addiction. RESULTS: Of the 200 respondents, 30% (n=60) had used tanning beds in a non-medical setting. The median age of first use was 23 years (15-59). 11.7% of respondents had started before the authorised age of 18 years. "To prepare the skin for exposure to the sun" was the main reason given (68.3%) for use of tanning beds. The population was aware that use of such apparatus favours onset of skin cancer and ageing of the skin. Users were more convinced than non-users that UV cabins "prepare the skin for exposure to the sun" (75% vs. 49.6%, P=0.0009) and that they "favour skin cancer" (56.9% against 36.2%, P=0.0444). Addictive behaviour was detected in 3.3% (2/60) of users. CONCLUSION: Users are aware of the carcinogenic risk of UV cabins but expose themselves to such risk, as they believe it prepares their skin for sun exposure.

Ultraviolet A1 phototherapy for treatment of acrosclerosis in systemic sclerosis: controlled study with half-side comparison analysis.

BACKGROUND: Treatments currently used in acrosclerosis for patients with systemic sclerosis (SS) are not very efficient and are associated with adverse effects. Several reports concern the efficacy of ultraviolet A1 (UVA1) phototherapy for localized scleroderma. Recent studies appear to indicate the interest of UVA1 in acrosclerosis for patients with SS. However, these studies are uncontrolled. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether UVA1 phototherapy is effective for acrosclerosis in SS with a randomized, investigator-blinded, controlled study. METHODS: Nine patients with SS completed the study. The duration of disease ranged from 6 to 21 years. None of them had received glucocorticoids or immunosuppressive agents. Low-dose UVA1 phototherapy (40 J/cm(2)) of the randomized hand was performed three times weekly over a period of 14 weeks. The other hand served as control. The clinical evaluation used a modified semiquantitative skin scoring system, the index flexion and extension, and a visual analog scale (VAS) was performed at baseline and after treatment. RESULTS: The mean of skin score and VAS improved significantly (P<0.05), but this improvement does not appear to be different between the treated or the untreated hands. There was no modification of the index flexion or extension. Two patients noticeably improved the functions of the treated hand. No side effects were observed. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that UVA1 phototherapy does not improve cutaneous thickness in acrosclerosis even if few functional improvements, and some ulcerations healings can be occasionally observed. However, a larger scale trial is necessary to confirm this inefficiency.

Comparison between 308-nm monochromatic excimer light and narrowband UVB phototherapy (311-313 nm) in the treatment of vitiligo--a multicentre controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Vitiligo is an acquired pigmentary disorder characterized by areas of depigmented skin resulting from loss of epidermal melanocytes. Recently, it has been shown that narrowband ultraviolet B (NB-UVB) phototherapy may be more effective than psoralen and ultraviolet A (PUVA) photochemotherapy in treating vitiligo, and that 308-nm monochromatic excimer light (MEL) may present some advantages as compared to NB-UVB for the treatment of vitiligo. AIM The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of NB-UVB phototherapy and 308-nm MEL in vitiligo patients. METHODS: The study was done in a randomized, investigator-blinded and half-side comparison design. Twenty-one subjects with symmetrical vitiligo lesions were enrolled in this study. Vitiligo lesions on one body side were treated twice weekly for 6 months with 308-nm MEL, while NB-UVB phototherapy was used to treat lesions on the opposite side. RESULTS: At the end of the study six lesions (37.5%) treated with 308-nm MEL and only one lesion (6%) treated with NB-UVB achieved an excellent repigmentation (score 4) while four lesions (25%) treated with 308-nm MEL and five lesions (31%) treated with NB-UVB showed a good repigmentation (score 3). CONCLUSIONS: It appears that 308-nm MEL is more effective than NB-UVB in treating vitiligo lesions and it induces repigmentation more rapidly.

Photodynamic action of red light for treatment of erythrasma: preliminary results.

BACKGROUND: Erythrasma is a superficial cutaneous infection caused by Corynebacterium minutissimum and is characterized by fluorescence under Wood's light (UV) because of the presence of porphyrins. These molecules are photosensitizing and we propose to assess efficacy of red light that activates porphyrins (photodynamic reaction) in treatment of this pathology. OBJECTIVES: Assessment of effects of photodynamic action of red light for treatment of erythrasma without exogenous photosensitizing molecules. METHODS: Thirteen patients with erythrasma were treated by one illumination (80 J/cm2) by red light (broad band, peak at 635 nm) without exogenous photosensitizing molecules. Disappearance or reduction of extent of lesions were observed 2 weeks later. If lesions were still present, a second irradiation was conducted with the same method. RESULTS: Preliminary results are presented. As a result of red light irradiation, we noticed a complete recovery for three patients and, in most other cases, reduction of extent of lesions (mean: -29% after one session). The treatment was well tolerated. CONCLUSION: We report first cases of photodynamic treatment of erythrasma. There are other reports of clinical applications of antimicrobial action of photodynamic therapy in dermatology (acne vulgaris, leishmaniasis, warts, etc.). But there are few applications without addition of exogenous photosensitizing agent. The originality and interest of our study is to use spontaneous presence of porphyrins in the lesions. This technique seems to be an interesting alternative, inexpensive and easy, for the treatment of this localized infection. But an optimal method is still to be determined to improve efficacy.

[The prospective multicenter study on standard photopatch tests by the French Society of Photodermatology from 1991-2001]. / Etude prospective multicentrique 1991-2001 de la batterie standard des photopatch-tests de la Société Française de Photodermatologie.

INTRODUCTION: To develop a standard panel of photopatch tests, the French Society of Photodermatology conducted a prospective study from 1991 to 2001 on the frequency of photoallergens encountered in France and on the relevance of the choice of the various photoallergens. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirteen photobiology centers participated in the study from 1991 to 1995, and ten centers from 1995 to 2001. A set of 3 samples of photopatch tests was applied on any patient suspected of photoallergy. On Day 2, two sets were irradiated with ultraviolet A (UVA) and total spectrum (DEM 0.75); with the third set being used as control. Readings were made on D3 and D4. RESULTS: Two thousand sixty-seven patients were tested. Eight hundred fifty-six, i.e., 41% exhibited one or several positive tests. In the majority of cases it was a photoallergy (39.7 to 60% of cases) and eczema (29.5 to 45.6%). Photoaggravation was infrequent (7.9 to 10.3%). Cases of phototoxicity were rare. Sesquiterpenic lactones constantly provoked photoallergy, with 12 cases in 10 years. Although phenothiazines were the most photosensitizing allergens up until 1995, they were then overridden by ketoprofen in 1996 with 107 cases of UVA photosensitive reactions (75 cases) and total spectrum (32 cases). These were followed closely by sun screens, benzophenone (notably Eusolex 4360 with 54 pertinent cases of photoallergy) and dibenzoylmethane (with 31 cases due to Eusolex 8020). UVB filters were all potentially photosensitizing but to a lesser degree from 1 to 5 cases). DISCUSSION: Our results differ from those of Anglo-Saxon teams in the appearance of a new photoallergen, ketoprofen, which provoked numerous photosensitivities in both UVA and UVB. This justifies the systematic addition of this substance in our prospective set. Photoallergy was relatively rare, with around 100 cases reported within 10 years. Total spectrum irradiation of the photopatch tests revealed photoallergies that would not have been found with UVA alone. CONCLUSION: Study of photopatch tests has permitted the uniformization of the methodology in France, an overview of the frequency of the photoallergens tested and the development of a new standard set.

[Treatment of solar urticaria by intravenous immunoglobulins and PUVA therapy]. / Urticaire solaire traitée par l'association immunoglobulines polyvalentes et PUVAthérapie.

BACKGROUND: Solar urticaria is a rare form of urticaria occurring a few minutes after solar exposure. It is particularly incapaciting because it limits outdoor activities. Antihistamine and phototherapy are sometimes disappointing. CASE REPORT: A 32 Year-old woman had been suffering from severe solar urticaria since November 2000, which was confirmed by photobiological data. High-dose antihistamine treatment (fexofenadine 180 mg twice a day) was inefficient. Despite a first UVA desensitization, PUVAtherapy produced only a partial improvement and short lasting for protection, with an important handicap in daily life. In March 2002, among the others treatments, we chose intravenous immunoglobulins: 0.5 g/kg the first day then 1 g/kg the second and the third days. The minimal urticaria dose was raised from 1 J/cm2 in UVA before perfusion up to 15.6 J/cm2 48 hours later and in UVB from 100 mJ/cm2 up to 2,200 mJ/cm2. Clinically the improvement was significant but partial in daily activities. It was possible to reintroduce PUVAtherapy without UVA-desensitization and, for the first time, to obtain complete remission for more than 2 Months with an association of intravenous immunoglobulins, PUVAtherapy and antihistamine treatment. In July 2002, treatment was successfully repeated. DISCUSSION: First intention treatments (antihistamine and PUVAtherapy) are sometimes inefficient. Others treatments (plasmapheresis, ciclosporin, doxepin, cimetidine) are restrictive, not always efficient and can induce severe side-effects. We report the second case of solar urticaria improved by intravenous immunoglobulins. In spite of the cost, intravenous immunoglobulins seem to be an interesting treatment, at least by avoiding UVA-desensitization in severe cases of solar urticaria.

[Solar urticaria: pre-PUVA UVA desensitization]. / Urticaire solaire : désensibilisation UVA avant PUVAthérapie.

BACKGROUND: Solar urticaria is an uncommon disorder sometimes difficult to treat. It is characterized by the occurrence of typical whealing reactions on exposed skin a few minutes after sun exposure. The reactions resolve 1 to 5 hours after sun exposure ceases. We report a case evolving over several years, unresponsive to antihistamines and successfully treated by PUVAtherapy performed after UVA desensitization. CASE REPORT: For 3 years, a 22-year-old man developed erythema and itchy wheals at each solar exposure. The lesions appeared on all exposed areas including those usually exposed (face and hand) even in winter. An antihistamine regimen given for several weeks (cetirizine, loratadine) was ineffective. One trial of PUVA therapy led to an urticarial reaction of the entire body. Phototesting showed the minimal whealing dose for UVA was 0.4 J/cm(2). Phototherapy was therefore started by segmentary UVA irradiation at an initial dose of 0.1 J/cm(2). Exposure was then progressively increased allowing initiation of the PUVAtherapy on the 9(th) day with a dose of 0.5 J/cm(2) without whealing reaction. Slow increment PUVA therapy was able to induce good tolerance to sun exposure. DISCUSSION: Solar urticaria may sometimes have a deleterious effect on normal daily life. Severe cases are characterized by a whealing reaction after minimal sun exposure, even on regularly exposed skin. Antihistamines can provide some symptom relief in many patients, but high doses are required. If antihistamines are ineffective, PUVA therapy is indicated. Pre-PUVA UVA desensitization is often necessary. However, exposure to UVA alone has to be repeated every 24 to 48 hours to maintain the refractory state. The advantage of PUVA therapy is a more long lasting protection allowing weekly maintenance sessions.