Photopatch Testing 29
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Repositório Institucional dos Hospitais da Universidade de Coimbra Photopatch Testing 29 Margarida Gonçalo Contents 29.1 Introduction 29.1 Introduction ............................................................ 1 Photopatch testing combines the techniques of two 29.2 Indications for Performing Photopatch Tests...... 2 subspecialties in Dermatology, patch testing for aller- [AU1] 29.2.1 Main Indication ........................................................ 2 29.2.2 Other Indications for Photopatch Testing ................ 3 gic contact dermatitis and phototesting for photoder- matology. Due to difficulties in having both technologies 29.3 Photopatch Testing Technique .............................. 4 together (a patch test clinic and an UV irradiation 29.3.1 How to Perform Photopatch Tests ........................... 4 29.3.2 When to Perform Photopatch Tests ......................... 5 source), or because photoallergic contact dermatitis is 29.3.3 Irradiation Source and UV Dose .............................. 5 uncommon [1], this technique is not so widely per- 29.3.4 Photopatch Testing in Particular Cases formed. In a survey by Lehmann in the beginning of (Immunosuppression and Photosensitivity) ............. 6 2000, only a few dozens of clinics in Europe were per- 29.4 Reading and Interpretation of Test Results ......... 6 forming photopatch testing and only two centres tested 29.4.1 Timing of the Readings ............................................ 6 more than 50 patients/year [2]. 29.4.2 Scoring of the Reactions .......................................... 6 29.4.3 Interpretation of Test Results: Allergy or Also, in photopatch testing, apart from the inherent Photoallergy ............................................................. 7 temporal and regional variability of skin reactivity, 29.4.4 Relevance of Positive Reactions .............................. 8 many variables have to be dealt with: allergen concen- 29.5 Allergens for Photopatch Testing trations and vehicles, test series and reading of tests (Basic and Additional Series) ................................ 8 results from allergic contact dermatitis, UV source, 29.5.1 UV Filters in the Basic and Additional Tray for UV spectrum, UV irradiance and UV dose reaching Photopatch Testing ................................................... 10 29.5.2 Drugs in the Basic and Additional Tray for the skin from photodermatology, and, then, the com- Photopatch Testing ................................................... 10 mon final interpretation of test results. Therefore, there 29.5.3 Other Allergens for Photopatch Testing .................. 11 has been some difficulty in standardizing procedures. 29.6 Conclusions ............................................................. 11 But, photodermatologists and contact dermatologists met in Amsterdam, in 2002 and 2007, and agreed upon References ........................................................................... 12 a consensus methodology, allergen series and interpre- tation of test results [2]. Also, thereafter, several stud- ies are being performed in order to strengthen and improve this consensus methodology [3–5]. Core Message › Photopatch testing is probably underused and M. Gonçalo photoallergic contact dermatitis is presumed to Clinic of Dermatology, Coimbra University Hospital, University of Coimbra, Praceta Mota Pinto, be uncommon. 3000-175 Coimbra, Portugal e-mail: [email protected] J.D. Johansen et al. (eds.), Contact Dermatitis, 1 DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-03827-3_29, © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010 2 M. Gonçalo 29.2 Indications for Performing chest, forearms, back of the hands and legs, whereas in 29 Photopatch Tests photoallergic contact dermatitis, lesions occur in the areas of concomitant application of a photosensitizer and UV exposure (Fig. 29.1a, b). But there are less 29.2.1 Main Indication obvious patterns of photoallergy: the eczematous reac- tions, sometimes associated with targetoid lesions of The primary indication for photopatch testing is to con- erythema multiforme, can also involve some shaded firm a diagnosis of photoallergic contact eczema / pho- areas [6]; the allergen may, inadvertently, be trans- toallergy and find the responsible allergen. It can also ported by hands to areas other than the one of primary contribute to distinguish photoallergic from phototoxic application, as for ketoprofen (ectopic dermatitis) reactions, although this is not always easy. This distinc- [6–8]; only part of the exposed skin may be involved, tion may be important as photoallergic reactions are e.g. cheilitis as a manifestation of photoallergy from a usually more severe, with increasing intensity on further systemic photosensitizer [9] or cheilitis and chin der- exposures, with the possibility of progressing to persis- matitis from a mouth wash containing benzydamine tent photosensitivity and reactivity to cross-reac tive [10]; sometimes lesions spare the area of application chemicals. Therefore, recognizing and avoiding the and occur at a distance, as in the case of hand dermati- allergen is crucial for the prognosis of the dermatitis. tis from using a vaginal wash containing benzydamine Clinical manifestations of photosensitivity are very [11] and connubial photoallergic contact dermatitis polymorphic, sometimes with difficulty in distinguish- can also occur [7, 12, 13] (Fig. 29.1a, b). ing photoallergy from phototoxicity – acute or chronic Also, the relation to sunlight exposure may not be eczema, urticarial, lichenoid and pigmented reactions, so evident for the patient, as most reactions do not erythema multiforme, exaggerated sunburn, etc. (see occur immediately on sun exposure, some involve Chap. 18 for details). In photosensitivity from systemic non-exposed areas or have an asymmetric distribution, agents, lesions are usually localized on a symmetrical namely in car drivers who expose mainly one arm/ distribution, on the face, neck, V-area of the upper forearm. a b Fig. 29.1 (a, b) Chronic photoallergic contact dermatitis from benzydamine contained in Momem gele®, which the patient applied regularly to his wife. The distribution of lesions is c similar to systemic photosen- sitivity, probably due to systemic transcutaneous absorption of the NSAID. (c) Positive photopatch tests to benzydamine at 1 and 5% pet. irradiated with 5 J/cm2 of UVA and to the drugs containing the drug (Tantum verde® and Momem gele®) (right side), with negative reactions in the left, non-irradiated area 29 Photopatch Testing 3 Core Message [15–18]. Facial, hair and nail cosmetics usually con- › tain UV filters, both to prevent photoaging and skin Photopatch testing is mainly indicated for the cancer in the users and also to photostabilize the prod- study of photoallergic contact dermatitis/pho- uct and increase its shelf life. toallergy, but many other patients may benefit UV filters, both in cosmetics and sunscreens, are from photopatch testing. the main cause of photoallergic contact dermatitis (Fig. 29.2a). Therefore, any suspicion of skin intolerance to a sunscreen deserves photopatch testing. Patients with idiopathic photodermatoses (chronic actinic dermatitis, polymorphic light eruption) or other types of chronic 29.2.2 Other Indications for Photopatch photosensitivity (photosensitive atopic dermatitis, lupus Testing erythematosus) are particularly prone to develop photo- allergic contact dermatitis from UV filters, as they Apart from patients with suspected photoallergic con- have to use sunscreens daily to prevent photosensitivity tact eczema / photoallergy, others can also benefit from [1, 16, 17]. Therefore, this is another indication to per- this study, namely any patient with a dermatitis that form photopatch testing, most particularly when these mainly affects the exposed sites (Table 29.1). patients present with an eczematous reaction or there is Photopatch testing may be important to distinguish an unexpected cutaneous response to therapy. an airborne allergic contact dermatitis from photosen- When, in the investigation of photosensitivity, the sitivity. Both involve the face, neck, V-area of the upper patient refers exposure to a known phototoxic agent, chest, dorsum of the hands, forearms and the legs, and particularly if it occurs with a slight sun exposure or even though shaded and hairy areas, e.g. upper eyelid, little contact with the phototoxic substance, photopatch retroauricular folds and submandibular area, are clas- testing may also reveal photoallergy. Photoallergy to sically spared in photosensitivity and involved in air- psoralens can develop during PUVA therapy or from borne dermatitis, this difference is not always so evident contact with plants containing psoralens [19]. These [7]. Also, photoallergic contact dermatitis can occur patients react to very low concentrations of psoralen from an airborne allergen, as olaquindox, present in (down to 0.0001%) in the photopatch test [20] or, both pig feeds [14]. in the patch and photopatch test, therefore, associating [AU2] Facial dermatitis, suspected to be cosmetic dermati- both allergic and photoallergic contact dermatitis tis, can be due to a photosensitizer in a cosmetic, e.g. [21, 22]. Also, for known phototoxic drugs like pro- UV filters, which are frequently responsible for aller- methazine, chlorpromazine, benzydamine, lomefloxa-