Disparity in Cutaneous Pigmentary Response to LED vs Halogen Incandescent Visible Light: Results from a Single Center, Investigational Clinical Trial Determining a Minimal Pigmentary Visible Light Dose.

Background: While most of the attention regarding skin pigmentation has focused on the effects of ultraviolet radiation, the cutaneous effects of visible light (400 to 700nm) are rarely reported. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the cutaneous pigmentary response to pure visible light irradiation, examine the difference in response to different sources of visible light irradiation, and determine a minimal pigmentary dose of visible light irradiation in melanocompetent subjects with Fitzpatrick skin type III - VI. METHODS: The study was designed as a single arm, non-blinded, split-side dual intervention study in which subjects underwent visible light irradiation using LED and halogen incandescent light sources delivered at a fluence of 0.14 Watts/cm2 with incremental dose progression from 20 J/cm2 to 320 J/cm2. Pigmentation was assessed by clinical examination, cross-polarized digital photography, and analytic colorimetry. RESULTS: Immediate, dose-responsive pigment darkening was seen with LED light exposure in 80% of subjects, beginning at 60 Joules. No pigmentary changes were seen with halogen incandescent light exposure at any dose in any subject. CONCLUSION: This study is the first to report a distinct difference in cutaneous pigmentary response to different sources of visible light, and the first to demonstrate cutaneous pigment darkening from visible LED light exposure. Our findings raise the concern that our increasing daily artificial light surroundings may have clandestine effects on skin biology.

J Drugs Dermatol. 2017;16(11):1105-1110.

A Difference in Cutaneous Pigmentary Response to LED Versus Halogen Incandescent Visible Light: A Case Report from a Single Center, Investigational Clinical Trial Determining a Minimal Pigmentary Visible Light Dose.

BACKGROUND: While most of the attention regarding skin pigmentation has focused on the effects on ultraviolet radiation, the cutaneous effects of visible light (400 to 700nm) are rarely reported. In this report, we describe a case of painful erythema and induration that resulted from direct irradiation of UV-naïve skin with visible LED light in a patient with Fitzpatrick type II skin.

METHODS AND RESULTS: A 24-year-old healthy woman with Fitzpatrick type II skin presented to our department to participate in a clinical study. As part of the study, the subject underwent visible light irradiation with an LED and halogen incandescent visible light source. After 5 minutes of exposure, the patient complained of appreciable pain at the LED exposed site. Evaluation demonstrated erythema and mild induration. There were no subjective or objective findings at the halogen incandescent irradiated site, which received equivalent fluence (0.55 Watts / cm2). The study was halted as the subject was unable to tolerate the full duration of visible light irradiation.

CONCLUSION: This case illustrates the importance of recognizing the effects of visible light on skin. While the vast majority of investigational research has focused on ultraviolet light, the effects of visible light have been largely overlooked and must be taken into consideration, in all Fitzpatrick skin types.

J Drugs Dermatol. 2017;16(4):388-392.

A case of new onset keratosis pilaris after discontinuation of erlotinib.

IMPORTANCE: Keratosis pilaris and keratosis pilaris-like eruptions have been reported in association with RAF inhibitors sorafenib and vemurafenib. We describe herein what is to our knowledge the first reported case of new onset keratosis pilaris after discontinuation of EGFR inhibitor erlotinib. OBSERVATIONS: A 60 year-old female with stage IV lung cancer was treated with erlotinib (100 mg/d). The patient elected to discontinue erlotinib after four years secondary to adverse systemic reactions. However, five months later small, monomorphic, rough, folliculocentric papules with surrounding mild erythema characteristic of keratosis pilaris were noted on upper back and arms. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This serves as the first documented case of new onset keratosis pilaris in a patient after discontinuation of erlotinib. We report the present case to show the possible association of keratosis pilaris with not only RAF inhibitors, but also the EGFR inhibitor erlotinib. Further investigation will determine whether this is a class effect with other systemic EGFR inhibitors.