			Home About us Contact

Photoallergic Contact Dermatitis (photoallergic + contact_dermatitis)

Distribution by Scientific Domains

Medical Sciences	100%

Selected Abstracts

Photoallergic contact dermatitis from topical diclofenac in Solaraze® gel

CONTACT DERMATITIS, Issue 6 2006
L. Kowalzick
Solaraze® gel (Shire Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, Cologne, Germany) containing 3% diclofenac has been licensed in 2001 as a topical treatment for actinic keratoses. It is commonly used in dermatological practice. Undesirable effects are believed to be rare but include pruritus, paresthesia and application-site reactions (dry skin, rash, erythema, contact dermatitis and vesicobullous eruptions). Recently, a few cases of contact dermatitis due to three different allergens including diclofenac have been reported (1,2). [source]

Photoallergic contact dermatitis caused by ultraviolet filters in different sunscreens

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DERMATOLOGY, Issue 2008
Esther J. H. Collaris MD
Over the last decade, a change in the public awareness regarding the possible danger of excessive sunlight exposure has resulted in an increased consumption of sunscreens. These products contain a broad spectrum of putative sensitizers that can cause contact dermatitis and, upon exposure to ultraviolet (UV) irradiation, photocontact dermatitis. Among these sensitizing compounds, UV filters are the most frequent cause of photoallergic reactions. Although rarely observed, we here describe the occurrence of a photoallergic contact dermatitis in a 55-year-old man after the use of two different sunscreens. Photopatch testing showed hypersensitivity reactions of the delayed type against three different chemical UV filters, 4-tert-butyl-4- methoxy-dibenzoylmethane (Parsol 1789), 2-ethylhexyl-p-methoxycinnamate (Parsol MCX), and isoamyl-p-methoxycinnamate (Neoheliopan). [source]

Photoallergic contact dermatitis to Heracleum giganteum

PHOTODERMATOLOGY, PHOTOIMMUNOLOGY & PHOTOMEDICINE, Issue 2 2008
Daniela Karimian-Teherani
Summary Heracleum plants occur in numerous species worldwide and may cause phototoxic reactions due to its content of various furocoumarins. In this case report, a widespread photoallergic contact dermatitis after exposure to Heracleum giganteum (giant bear claw) is described. A photopatch test with extracts from the stem, leaves and seeds of the giant bear claw revealed a positive papulovesicular reaction that already appeared at 24 h and peaked at 72 h after irradiation with 5 J/cm2 UVA. The unirradiated controls remained negative. We conclude that in rare cases Heracleum plants may cause severe photoallergic reactions that can be verified by photopatch testing. [source]

Photoallergic contact dermatitis is uncommon

BRITISH JOURNAL OF DERMATOLOGY, Issue 4 2001
A. Darvay
Background Despite the enormous increase in sunscreen use, allergic contact (AC) and photoallergic (PA) reactions to ultraviolet (UV) filters are considered rare. Objectives To analyse the data from 2715 patients who underwent photopatch testing at St John's Institute of Dermatology during the period 1983,98. Methods A retrospective analysis of all positive photopatch test episodes was undertaken with the results retrieved from the environmental dermatology database and further verified with the original archived patch test documentation for each individual patient. Results In 111 patients with positive reactions (4·1%), there were 155 AC or PA reactions to allergens in the photopatch test series. Eighty PA reactions were observed in 62 (2·3%) patients (32 men and 30 women, age range 28,75 years), with UV filters accounting for 52 positive reactions (65%), drugs 16 (20%), musk ambrette 11 (14%) and the antiseptic trichlorocarbanilide one (1%). The most common UV filter photoallergen was benzophenone-3 with 14 positive results, followed by benzophenone-10 (n = 9), isopropyl dibenzoylmethane (n = 6), p -aminobenzoic acid (PABA) (n = 5), octyl dimethyl PABA (n = 5), butyl methoxydibenzoylmethane (n = 4), isoamyl methoxycinnamate (n = 2), ethyl methoxycinnamate (n = 2), octyl methoxycinnamate (n = 2), amyl dimethyl PABA (n = 2) and phenylbenzimidazole sulphonic acid (n = 1). A similar number of AC reactions to UV filters was detected in this study. Thus 49 patients (1·8%) had a total of 75 reactions: 51 due to UV filters and 24 as a result of exposure to fragrances and therapeutic agents. Benzophenone-10 accounted for 13 AC reactions and benzophenone-3 for eight reactions. Twenty-two patients had a PA reaction alone, whereas 19 patients had chronic actinic dermatitis and 15 patients polymorphic light eruption (PLE) in addition. Thus, 34 of the 62 patients (55%) had a preceding underlying photodermatosis. Conclusions These results show a low yield of positive photopatch tests. Thus, despite the large increase in the use of UV filters over the last decade, the development of PA reactions remains rare. Furthermore, most of the common UV filter photoallergens identified in this study, including PABA, amyl dimethyl PABA and benzophenone-10, are now rarely used in sunscreen manufacture, while isopropyl dibenzoylmethane was voluntarily removed from the market in 1993. Currently, benzophenone-3 is the commonest contact photoallergen still in widespread use. In contrast, the UVB filter octyl methoxycinnamate, used in a number of sunscreens, produced only two positive PA reactions in 12 years of testing. Nevertheless, although these reactions are extremely rare, patients with photodermatoses such as PLE and chronic actinic dermatitis do represent a group of patients at increased risk of developing photoallergy. Further photopatch test series should be regularly reviewed and updated, as the relevance of individual photoallergens changes over time. Currently, there is no evidence that PA reactions represent a common clinical problem. [source]

Photoallergic contact dermatitis caused by ultraviolet filters in different sunscreens

A11. UV-related skin hazards: allergic photodermatitis

JOURNAL OF COSMETIC DERMATOLOGY, Issue 2 2002
Paolo Pigatto
Cases of dermatitis induced by exposure to ultra-violet radiation are increasingly encountered in clinical practice, with contact allergic photodermatitis accounting for about 10% of cases. Its frequency seems to be increasing, not only as a result of the increased use of cosmetic products and contact with some of the materials of working processes, but above all because of the greater exposure to both natural and artificial sources of UV radiation. Many substances have been defined ,photo-allergising' but their exact prevalence has varied over the years with the introduction and use of new substances in cosmetics and pharmaceutical products. For these, and other reasons, there are few studies concerning the prevalence and incidence of contact allergic photodermatitis in Italy. A total of 2160 patients with clinical histories suggestive of photoallergic contact dermatitis were seen. All patients underwent photopatch tests with haptens proposed by the Gruppo Italiano Ricerca Dermatiti da Contatto plus other substances suggested by each patient's history. 518 patients (24%) were positive to at least one test substance of the standard series or to added substances. Typical photoallergic reactions were seen in 423 subjects, representing 19.5% of the total population. Topical drugs are the substances most frequently involved in photodermatitis. The incidence in our population was about equal for antimicrobial agents, additives to fragrances, and fragrances themselves. Other allergens frequently found were sun screening agents which were the second group of haptens with clear-cut relevance. [source]

Photoallergic contact dermatitis to Heracleum giganteum

Allergic and photoallergic contact dermatitis to Olaquindox in a pig breeder with prolonged photosensitivity

PHOTODERMATOLOGY, PHOTOIMMUNOLOGY & PHOTOMEDICINE, Issue 1 2002
H. Belhadjali
No abstract is available for this article. [source]