[Current problems of polypharmacy in geriatric patients when taking drugs with a risk of photosensitivity.]

The article presents an overview of the current problems of polypharmacy in geriatric patients when taking drugs with a risk of photosensitivity. The article contains information about emerging adverse drug reactions, as well as methods for diagnosing, correcting and preventing phototoxic and photoallergic reactions in patients of older age groups. The main aspects of dermatological support in the system of long-term care for geriatric patients when taking drugs with a risk of photosensitivity are outlined. Clinical signs of senile xerosis and skin manifestations of adverse drug reactions were studied when taking drugs with the risk of photosensitization before and after the use of a photoprotector in elderly patients.

Anticancer treatments and photosensitivity.

Drug-induced photosensitivity is associated with a wide range of anticancer treatments, including conventional chemotherapeutic agents, targeted anticancer therapies, and immune checkpoint inhibitors. These dermatologic adverse events can have a major impact on the well-being and quality of life of cancer patients, leading to dose modifications and interruption or discontinuation of anticancer treatments in severe cases. However, the heterogeneous nature of the photosensitive reactions induced by these agents, as well as the common concomitant use of other potentially photosensitizing drugs (antibiotics, voriconazole, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, etc.), can make the diagnosis and, therefore the prevention, of these adverse events particularly challenging. The aim of this review is to describe the most characteristic forms of photosensitivity observed in patients being treated with anticancer treatments, including phototoxicity and photoallergy, and other potentially photo-induced manifestations such as UV recall, exaggerated sunburn reactions associated with treatment-related vitiligo, drug-induced cutaneous lupus erythematosus, and UV-induced hyperpigmentation. We also discuss the photosensitive reactions recently reported with new-generation targeted anticancer therapies and immune checkpoint inhibitors and highlight the importance of continued surveillance to identify photosensitizing agents, and of educating patients on the need for preventive UVA/UVB photoprotective measures.

Dermatitis de contacto fotoalérgica y test de fotoparches: revisión de la literatura y aplicación de la técnica en clínica alemana de Santiago / Photoallergic contact dermatitis and test photopatches: literature review and application of the technique at clínica alemana de Santiago

Las fotodermatosis son un conjunto de patologías cutáneas originadas o agravadas por exposición a radiación ya sea solar o artificial. Se clasifican en cuatro categorías: 1. Idiopáticas o mediadas inmunológicamente 2. Dermatosis fotoagravadas, 3. Fotosensibilidad inducida por agentes y 4. Trastornos por reparación defectuosa del ADN. La fotosensibilidad inducida por agentes consiste en reacciones secundarias a la exposición de ciertos químicos, llamados fotosensibilizadores y a distintos tipos de radiación lumínica. Los fotosensibilizadores pueden ser de origen endógeno o exógeno, aquellos exógenos provienen desde el ambiente, fármacos u otros productos (tanto sistémicos como tópicos), los cuales sufren modificaciones estructurales al entrar en contacto con radiación, provocando como consecuencia, distintas manifestaciones cutáneas. En este artículo se revisarán principalmente las reacciones fototóxicas y fotoalérgicas (ambas, reacciones de fotosensibilidad inducidas por agentes exógenos) indagando en sus diferencias y el enfrentamiento clínico de cada una. También, se revisarán los exámenes que permiten estudiar los distintos diagnósticos diferenciales, especialmente el test de fotoparches, el cual está cobrando cada vez más importancia en la práctica clínica.

Photodermatoses are a group of skin diseases induced or aggravated by exposure to radiation, whether solar or artificial. They are classified into four general categories: 1. Idiopathic or immunologically mediated photodermatoses 2. Photoexacerbated dermatoses 3. Agent induced photosensitivity 4. DNA repair defects Photosensitivity induced by agents are secondary reactions to the exposure to some chemicals, called photosensitizers, and to different types of light radiation. Photosensitizers can be classified as exogenous or endogenous. Exogenous agents come from the environment, drugs or other products (both systemic and topical), which undergo structural changes when they come into contact with radiation, causing different skin manifestations as consequence. Differences between phototoxic and photoallergic reactions (both photosensitivity reactions induced by exogenous agents), the clinical approach of each one of them, and available tests that are used to make a diagnosis, especially, photo patch test will be reviewed in this article

[When sunscreens do not help: allergic contact dermatitis to UV filters]. / Wenn Sonnenschutzprodukte nicht mehr helfen: Allergisches Kontaktekzem auf UV-Filter.

Ultraviolet (UV) filters may cause allergic and more frequently photoallergic contact dermatitis. Therefore, a photopach test should always be performed in case of a suspected contact sensitivity to UV filters. We report a case of a 65-year-old woman with a recurrent erythema of the face and décolleté after sun exposure despite application of a sunscreen. The (photo)patch test revealed a contact sensitivity to the UV filter butyl-methoxybenzoylmethane. Treatment with a topical glucocorticoid and avoidance of the particular UV filter led to a rapid improvement.

Allergic Contact Dermatitis From Methylisothiazolinone in Residential Wall Paint.

A 33-year-old woman presented to our clinic for suspected photoallergic contact dermatitis with a recent episode of severe, vesicular dermatitis involving exposed skin and correlating with relocation to a new home. Biopsy results showed spongiotic and lichenoid dermatitis with eosinophils. Patch test results showed a very strong (+++) reaction to methylisothiazolinone (MI), mild (+) reaction to MI/methylchloroisothiazolinone, and no reaction to benzisothiazolinone. These allergens were found in several personal products. However, the patient was suspicious of 4 wall paints recently used in her home. Semiopen patch tests to 3 Behr interior paints showed positive results. Nine controls showed negative results. High-performance liquid chromatography demonstrated MI and benzisothiazolinone in all 4 paints at concentrations ranging from 50 to 100 ppm and 290 to 340 ppm, respectively. Although MI has been reported to cause occupational airborne contact dermatitis in European household painters, to our knowledge, this is the first documented case of paint-related MI allergy in the United States.

Drug-Induced Photosensitivity - a Continuing Diagnostic Challenge.

When taking different drugs, their possible side effects on the skin should be considered, including skin reactions connected to photosensitivity. This photosensitivity caused by drugs can appear as phototoxic reactions (which occur more often) or photoallergic reactions (which occur less often and include allergic mechanisms). The following drugs stand out as medications with a high photosensitivity potential: nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), cardiovascular drugs (such as amiodarone), phenothiazines (especially chlorpromazine), retinoids, antibiotics (sulfonamides, tetracyclines, especially demeclocycline and quinolones), etc. In recent years, photosensitive reactions to newer drugs have appeared, e.g., targeted anticancer therapies such as BRAF kinase inhibitors (vemurafenib, dabrafenib), EGFR inhibitors, VEGFR inhibitors, MEK inhibitors, Bcr-Abl tyrosine kinase inhibitors, etc. In patients taking drugs over a longer period of time (e.g., NSAIDs, cardiovascular drugs, etc.), a particular problem arises when an unrecognized drug-induced photosensitivity on the skin manifests in summer months. When taking patient histories, the physician/dermatovenereologist should bear in mind that any drug the patient is currently taking may be the cause of skin reactions. Therefore, patients who use potentially photosensitive drugs and treatments on a long term basis should be warned of the possibility of these side effects on their skin and advised to avoid direct exposure to sunlight and to use adequate photoprotection. If patients carefully protect themselves from the sun, it is often not necessary to stop treatments that include photosensitive drugs. If such reactions appear, anti-inflammatory and antiallergic therapies should be introduced.

Drug-induced photosensitivity: Photoallergic and phototoxic reactions.

Drug-induced photosensitivity refers to the development of cutaneous disease due to the interaction between a given chemical agent and sunlight. Photosensitivity reactions can be classified as phototoxic or photoallergic. Sometimes, there is an overlap between these two patterns, making their distinction particularly difficult for the clinician. We review the drugs that have been implicated as photosensitizers, the involved mechanism, and their clinical presentations. The main topical agents that cause contact photosensitivity are the nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, whereas the main systemic drugs inducing photosensitivity are antimicrobials, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory agents, and cardiovascular drugs. Drug-induced photosensitivity remains a common clinical problem and is often underdiagnosed.

Photoallergy.

Many--topically applied or systemically administered--substances may trigger photoallergic skin reactions following exposure to ultraviolet (UV) radiation. While most cases represent photoallergic contact dermatitis due to topically applied agents, systemically triggered photoallergy is considerably less common. The photopatch test--a UV-exposed variant of the conventional patch test--is the mainstay in the diagnosis of photoallergic or phototoxic reactions.

Adverse reactions to sunscreen agents: epidemiology, responsible irritants and allergens, clinical characteristics, and management.

Sunscreen is a key component in the preventive measures recommended by dermatologists and public health campaigns aimed at reducing sunburn, early skin aging, and skin cancer. To maximize compliance, adverse reactions to sunscreens should be minimized. Although inactive ingredients cause many of these reactions, it is important for dermatologists to be aware of reactions to active ultraviolet filters. There are approximately 120 chemicals that can function as ultraviolet (UV) filters. This review focuses on the 36 most common filters in commercial and historical use. Of these, 16 are approved for use by the US Food and Drug Administration. The benzophenones and dibenzoylmethanes are the most commonly implicated UV filters causing allergic and photoallergic contact dermatitis (PACD) reactions; benzophenone-3 is the leading allergen and photoallergen within this class. When clinically indicated, patch and photopatch testing should be performed to common UV filters.

Severe skin toxicity in pediatric oncology patients treated with voriconazole and concomitant methotrexate.

We report the occurrence of skin toxicities in pediatric oncology patients on concomitant treatment with voriconazole and methotrexate (MTX). Of 23 patients who received this combination, 11 patients suffered from cheilitis and/or photosensitivity. In contrast, only in 1 of 9 patients who received voriconazole without MTX was photosensitivity observed. A mechanism of action was not able to be identified. We describe two cases with severe skin toxicities. Caution is warranted when using voriconazole and concomitant MTX.

Skin hardening effect in patients with polymorphic light eruption: comparison of UVB hardening in hospital with a novel home UV-hardening device.

BACKGROUND: An effective prophylactic treatment of patients with polymorphic light eruption (PLE) consists of repeated low, gradually increasing exposures to UVB radiation. This so-called UV(B) hardening induces better tolerance of the skin to sunlight. OBJECTIVE: SunshowerMedical company (Amsterdam) has developed an UV (B) source that can be used during taking shower. The low UV fluence of this apparatus makes it an interesting device for UV hardening. In a group of PLE patients, we compared the effectiveness of the irradiation with SunshowerMedical at home with that of the UVB treatment in the hospital. METHODS: The PLE patients were randomized for one of the treatments. The hospital treatment consisted of irradiations with broad-band UVB (Waldmann 85/UV21 lamps) twice a week during 6 weeks. The home UV-device was used each day with the maximal irradiation time of 6 min. The outcome assessment was based on the information obtained from patients' dermatological quality of life (DLQI) questionnaires, the ability of both phototherapies to reduce the provocation reaction and from the patients' evaluation of the long-term benefits of their phototherapies. RESULTS: Sixteen patients completed treatment with SunshowerMedical and thirteen completed treatment in hospital. Both types of phototherapy were effective. There was a highly significant improvement in DLQI with either treatment. In most cases, the hardening reduced or even completely suppressed clinical UV provocation of PLE. The patients using SunshowerMedical at home were, however, much more content with the treatment procedure than the patients visiting the dermatological units. CONCLUSIONS: Both treatments were equally effective in the induction of skin tolerance to sunlight in PLE patients. However, the home treatment was much better accepted than the treatment in the hospital.

Severe phototoxicity associated with long-term voriconazole treatment.

Voriconazole is a second-generation triazole antifungal approved for the treatment of invasive fungal infections, particularly with Aspergillus, Candida, Fusarium, and Scedosporium spp. Frequently reported adverse effects of voriconazole include visual disturbance (21 %), elevated liver enzymes (15.6 %) and rashes (7 %), which are largely attributable to drug-induced photosensitivity. We report a case of serious phototoxicity in a 8 year old boy who underwent chemotherapy for AML. He received voriconazole for the treatment and subsequent re-infection prophylaxis after pulmonary aspergillosis. One year after the start of therapy he developed blistering eruptions on his face after minimal sunlight exposure. Recent reports about the development of squamous cell carcinoma and melanoma, respectively, in children during and after oral therapy with voriconazole seem to warrant systematic follow-up investigations of all voriconazole-treated patients.

Photoallergic contact dermatitis to 8-methoxypsoralen in Ficus carica.

BACKGROUND: Photocontact dermatitis to Ficus carica is induced by furocoumarins present in sap. These substances are generally considered to cause phototoxic reactions. OBJECTIVES: We conducted a patch test and histopathological study of patients with phytophoto contact dermatitis from the fig tree to evaluate the mechanism underlying the photoreaction. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patch and photopatch testing with serial dilutions of two natural furocoumarins [5-methoxypsoralen and 8-methoxypsoralen (8-MOP)] contained in plant sap were performed in 47 patients. A synthetic furocoumarin, 4,5',8-trimethylpsoralen, was also tested. Histopathological analyses were made of some positive photoreactions. RESULTS: Positive photopatch tests reactions to 8-MOP were obtained in 12 of 47 patients, in 4 of them down to a concentration of 0.0001%. Patch tests and photopatch tests to the other two furocoumarins were negative. Histopathological findings on biopsies from positive photopatch tests to 8-MOP showed a dermatitis. CONCLUSIONS: Allergic photoreactions induced by contact with plants containing coumarins are generally regarded as chance findings. This study has demonstrated that phytophoto allergic contact dermatitis resulting from furocoumarins is not an exceptional finding, and should be suspected in subjects with diffuse clinical manifestations in photo-exposed but also non-exposed sites. To differentiate allergic from toxic photoreactions, patch tests need to be performed with serial dilutions of furocoumarins. Histological analysis of a biopsy sample from a positive test site will reveal alterations compatible with a photoallergic contact dermatitis.

Do 'cinnamon-sensitive' patients react to cinnamate UV filters?

BACKGROUND: Use of sunscreens has increased dramatically worldwide, and some sunscreen chemicals may be allergens. Ultraviolet (UV) filters are added to various cosmetic products. Cinnamate UV filters are structurally related to cinnamon-related fragrances. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine if 'cinnamon-sensitive' patients show positive photopatch tests to cinnamate UV filters and, therefore, should avoid these UV filters. METHOD: We photopatch tested cinnamon-sensitive patients (n = 18) with cinnamon, cinnamon-related fragrances, Myroxylon pereirae, and two cinnamate UV filters. RESULTS: No positive photopatch test to cinnamate UV filters was found (95% confidence interval 0-13%). DISCUSSION: The risk of developing unwanted allergic contact dermatitis because of cinnamate UV filters in cinnamon-sensitive patients seems to be low, but our study population was small. Therefore, we recommend cinnamon-sensitive patients to perform a use test, for example the repeated open application test, before using cosmetic products containing cinnamate UV filters. In addition, physicians and patients should be aware that many sunscreens contain (cinnamon-related) fragrances and could, therefore, elicit allergic contact dermatitis in cinnamon-sensitive patients, independently from other potential sensitizing components of the sunscreen.

Facial Sweet syndrome mimicking photoallergic contact dermatitis.

Sweet syndrome (acute febrile neutrophilic dermatosis) usually presents with painful erythematous plaques, malaise, and fever. Histologically skin infiltration with neutrophils is characteristic. The etiology of the disease is unknown. Sweet syndrome can be subdivided into the classical form, which is usually idiopathic and is associated with some kind of inflammation, the paraneoplastic form and the drug-induced one. We present the unusual case of an 83-year-old woman who appeared to have facial photoallergic contact dermatitis but turned out to have facial Sweet syndrome.