The enigma of chronic photosensitivity

Ramsay, Colin A.

doi:10.1111/j.1365-2230.1981.tb02375.x

Cited by 17 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 33 publications

(26 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, the majority had abnormal qualitative responses to UV light and several also reacted to visible light. This is in accordance with other reports on PLR (5,7,10,17,18), although sometimes the threshold to UVB can be within normal limits. A few studies have failed to produce abnormal reactions to UV A testing; a possible explanation is that the given doses of UV A were sub- erythemic.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Contact and photocontact allergy in persistent light reactivity

Thune

Eeg-Larsen

1984

Contact Dermatitis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The patient group consisted of 18 elderly male patients with persistent light reactivity who were subjected to extensive phototesting with different wavelengths, including patch and photopatch testing. All reacted adversely to ultraviolet light and some also to longer wavelengths when tested on normal appearing skin. 17 patients showed contact or photocontact reactions, of which 12 were positive photopatch test reactions and 11 were plain contact reactions. Contact allergy to constituents of oak moss and different lichen compounds was twice as common as allergy to Compositae oleoresins. 72 patients with chronic polymorphic light eruption were used as a control group. 10 of these patients had either a positive photopatch test reaction or a plain contact allergy. Patients with persistent light reactivity are characterized by a particular susceptibility to develop a delayed-type hypersensitivity. They frequently have both photo and plain contact allergy, often to substances used in cosmetics. In 13 of 16 patients in whom a biopsy was carried out, the histology supported the clinical diagnosis. In none of the biopsies was the picture diagnostic in itself. This underlines the inadequacy of light microscopy as the only diagnostic procedure.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Contact and photocontact allergy in persistent light reactivity

Thune

Eeg-Larsen

1984

Contact Dermatitis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, this case demonstrates the difficulty in differentiating the diagnosis of photocontact dermatitis from persistent light reaction. In the case reported here, idiopathic photosensitivity to UVB (290-320 nm), as is often found in persistent light reaction (3), was also present. The absorption spectrum of 1% diaminodiphenylmethane in 70% ethanol shows a primary peak at 240 nm and a secondary peak at 290 nm.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 69%

Occupational photosensitivity to diaminodiphenylmethane

LeVine

1983

Contact Dermatitis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some define CAD as a syndrome 13 including actinic reticuloid, photosensitive eczema, photosensitivity dermatitis, and persistent light reactivity; others distinguish each of these as separate disorders. [14][15][16][17] Neither the Singapore 3 nor the Scandinavian 1 study specified their criteria for diagnosis of CAD. The New York study 2 included 'patients with persistent eczematous eruptions in sun Quinidine bisulfate, amiodarone hydrochloride Angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors Fosinopril sodium exposed areas in the absence of continued exposure to photosensitizers'.…”

Section: This Compound Was Newmentioning

confidence: 99%

Photosensitivity: The 9‐year experience at a Sydney contact dermatitis clinic

Lee

Freeman

2002

Aust J Dermatology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this retrospective study, 81 patients with photosensitivity were referred to the Contact and Occupational Dermatitis Clinic at The Skin and Cancer Foundation Australia, in Sydney, between 1991 and 1999. Photoallergic contact dermatitis (PACD) was diagnosed in 39.5% of patients, with 87.5% of these reactions being to sunscreen chemicals. Polymorphic light eruption (PMLE) accounted for 19.7% of cases, drug photosensitivity 14.8%, and photoaggravated atopic dermatitis and chronic actinic dermatitis (CAD) each constituted 7.4%. Compared with overseas studies, there was a high incidence of PACD, possibly reflecting the referral bias and widespread use of sunscreens. The incidence of PMLE and CAD was less than studies from cooler climates overseas. No cause could be determined for three photosensitive patients.

show abstract

The enigma of chronic photosensitivity

Cited by 17 publications

References 33 publications

Contact and photocontact allergy in persistent light reactivity

Contact and photocontact allergy in persistent light reactivity

Occupational photosensitivity to diaminodiphenylmethane

Photosensitivity: The 9‐year experience at a Sydney contact dermatitis clinic

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About