Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Contact Dermatitis ; 88(6): 438-445, 2023 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36807918

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Dermatitis, Allergic Contact , Dermatitis, Photoallergic , Dermatology , Humans , Retrospective Studies , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/complications , Dermatitis, Photoallergic/diagnosis , Dermatitis, Photoallergic/etiology , Allergens/adverse effects , Sunscreening Agents/adverse effects , Patch Tests/methods
2.
Contact Dermatitis ; 87(4): 331-335, 2022 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35715881

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Allergic contact dermatitis caused by topical ophthalmic medications (OftACD) is frequently difficult to confirm with patch testing and, therefore, it is considered uncommon. METHODS: We collected retrospective data from a cohort of 65 patients with suspected OftACD patch tested in our Dermatology Unit (2005-2021) according to ESCD guidelines, using a series of topical drugs and excipients (Chemotechnique Diagnostics), including betaxolol and timolol 5% pet. kindly supplied by the pharmaceutical industry. Also, frequently used ophthalmic medications as well as patient's own products were also patch tested 'as is' in most patients. RESULTS: Positive patch tests to ophthalmic medications occurred in 44 patients (67.7%) (38F/6M; mean age 63.1 years), with 102 positive reactions. Most positive reactions were associated with active ingredients (n = 56), especially aminoglycoside antibiotics (n = 27), followed by excipients (n = 24) such as sodium metabisulfite (n = 7). There were also positive reactions to topical products tested 'as is' (n = 22), mostly containing beta-blockers, but only five of these reacted to the active ingredient. DISCUSSION: This study reinforces previous findings in OftACD, such as older age of onset, and the importance of antibiotics, contrasting with the progressively lower prevalence of excipients. In addition, it helps raising awareness for the sensitization to beta-blockers, which is probably underestimated. Patch test preparations for the diagnosis of OftACD may require protocol optimization.


Subject(s)
Dermatitis, Allergic Contact , Adrenergic beta-Antagonists/adverse effects , Allergens , Anti-Bacterial Agents/adverse effects , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/diagnosis , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/epidemiology , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/etiology , Excipients/adverse effects , Humans , Middle Aged , Patch Tests/adverse effects , Retrospective Studies
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...