Further Studies in Light-Sensitive Eruptions

Lamb, John H.

doi:10.1001/archderm.1961.01580100032005

Cited by 17 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Since then Bonnell and Russell, Ravits, Weidman, Andrade and Franks, Lane et al, and Biro and Klein each reported single cases. Lamb et al and Davis reported two cases each. McGrouther et al described three patients in Glasgow in 1977 .…”

Section: Classification Of Complications From Tattooingmentioning

confidence: 97%

IV. Complications from Tattoos

Goldstein¹

1979

The Journal of Dermatologic Surgery and Oncology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Classification Of Complications From Tattooingmentioning

confidence: 97%

IV. Complications from Tattoos

Goldstein¹

1979

The Journal of Dermatologic Surgery and Oncology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Adverse photosensitization induced by griseofulvin (GF) is well known and has been documented (1)(2)(3)(4). However, only a few cases have been reported with full particulars clinically, histologically, and photobiologically.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Griseofulvin‐induced Photodermatitis

Kojima

Hasegawa

Ishida

et al. 1988

The Journal of Dermatology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Six Japanese cases of griseofulvin (GF)‐induced photodermatitis were reported. All of the patients had received GF from 4 days to 4 months as treatment for tinea unguium. Clinical features were basically eczematous, but differed somewhat case by case. Patient 2 showed pigmentation and depigmentation and patient 5 showed pellagra‐like eruptions. From the clinical view, we could not differentiate precisely between phototoxic and photoallergic reactions. The difference may also depend on response severity, duration of skin eruption, or skin color. Blood and urine porphyrins were within normal ranges. An action spectrum study revealed that UVA was responsible for eliciting a photosensitivity reaction. Patch and photopatch tests were performed on all 6 patients. The results of the photopatch tests were positive for 3 patients and negative for the other 3. The degrees of reaction to photopatch tests differed so widely that it was difficult to determine suitable conditions for UVA intensity or GF concentrations for photopatch testing. Moreover, half of the patients showed negative photopatch tests. Although there is merit in the use of photopatch tests for studying the causes of systemically administered drug‐induced photodermatitis, there may also be limits to their usage. When performed carefully, drug readministration is a more reliable method. From the results of positive photopatch tests, photocross reactions between GF and penicillin, persistent light reactions and distant flare up phenomena, we concluded that in some of our cases, reactions were photoallergic. Histological findings showed non‐specific inflammatory changes. Direct immunofluorescence studies showed that immunoglobulin and complement were deposited at papillary perivascular areas and the dermo‐epidermal junction.

show abstract

Reactions to Light in Yellow Tattoos From Cadmium Sulfide

Björnberg¹

1963

Arch Dermatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Further Studies in Light-Sensitive Eruptions

Cited by 17 publications

References 9 publications

IV. Complications from Tattoos

IV. Complications from Tattoos

Griseofulvin‐induced Photodermatitis

Reactions to Light in Yellow Tattoos From Cadmium Sulfide

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About