Association of sunlight exposure and photoprotection measures with clinical outcome in systemic lupus erythematosus

This study was designed to explore the relationship of sunlight exposure and ultraviolet (UV) light protection measures with clinical outcome in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). A structured questionnaire was administered to sixty Puerto Rican SLE patients, to assess their attitudes and behavior regarding sunlight exposure and photoprotection measures. Medical records were reviewed to evaluate the clinical outcome measures that included: clinical manifestations, number of SLE-related hospitalizations, number of exacerbations and pharmacologic treatment. Almost all (98.3%) patients were well acquainted of sunlight effects on disease activity. Two thirds were exposed to direct sunlight for an average of less than one hour per day and 33.3% for one hour or more. Thirty patients (50%) reported use of sunscreen, with sun protective factor of 15 or greater, when exposed to sunlight. Less than 40% of patients regularly wore hat or long-sleeves clothes to protect from sunlight. Although there were some clinical differences between the groups with different sunlight exposure times, none reached statistical significance. Also, no significant differences were found between the groups in regards to sunlight protective clothes. However, patients that regularly used sunscreen had significantly lower renal involvement (13.3 vs 43.3%), thrombocytopenia (13.3 vs 40%), hospitalizations (26.7 vs. 76.7%), and requirement of cyclophosphamide treatment (6.7 vs. 30%) than patients that did not used it (P < 0.05). We conclude that use of sunscreen photoprotection was associated with a better clinical outcome in our SLE patients. These findings further support the importance and benefits of photoprotective measures in patients with SLE.

Retinoid therapy: compatible skin care

Topically applied tretinoin (a retinoid) has been used for over 25 years to treat acne and disorders of keratinization. Now, tretinoin emollient cream, 0.05% (Renova(R)), may be prescribed for the treatment of photodamaged and chronologically aged skin, in conjunction with appropriate skin care and sun protection routines. Mild to moderate cutaneous side effects to topical tretinoin, such as xerosis, peeling, erythema and subjective irritation, are experienced by a majority of patients undergoing retinoid therapy. Results of clinical compatibility testing show that concomitant use of effective moisturizers, mild cleansers and daily sunscreens greatly enhance skin tolerance and patient comfort. A frequently prescribed regimen for topical treatment of photodamaged skin includes a combination of tretinoin and glycolic acid. While many clinicians report the use of both these agents for the management of their patients, little information exists in the literature about their compatibility in concomitant use. The results of a double-blind clinical study demonstrate that daytime usage of one of two 8% glycolic acid lotions in addition to nightly applications of Renova was well tolerated as part of a comprehensive skin care and sun protection program.

[Round Table: Urticaria caused by arthropod bites and stings (excluding Hymenoptera)]

Adverse reactions to arthropod bites (hymenoptera excluded) can be faced with systemic reactions and local reaction. Among the numerous families of arthropods the species most commonly responsible are mosquitoes,. flea, horsefly and tick. In this article we explain the characteristics of reaction caused by arthropods and the mechanisms proposed. An IgE mechanism is incriminated in severe anaphylactic reactions. Various mechanisms have been proposed for local reactions. In order to know the incidence of sensitization and cross-reactivity with other arthropods, we have done a study where we have found that 31% of patients with reaction to mosquito bite had sensitization to Aedes communis and 53% of this group also had sensitization to other arthropods, probably due to a cross-reactivity.

Sunscreen application by photosensitive patients is inadequate for protection

Photosensitive patients often comment that sunscreen products seem of little benefit. We used fluorescence spectroscopy to assess quantitatively their sunscreen application technique. A dose-response relationship for sunscreen skin surface thickness and fluorescence intensity was determined for an intrinsically fluorescent sunscreen, Neutrogena sun protection factor (SPF) 15. Ten women with long-standing photosensitivity conditions were asked to apply this sunscreen in the manner they would normally on a bright sunny day. Fluorescence measurements were taken from all unclothed body areas, comprising 17 sites of the head, neck, upper and lower limbs. Geometric regression analysis of the dose-response data showed a high level of correlation (r = 0.99) between sunscreen thickness and fluorescence intensity, allowing fluorescence measurements to be converted to an equivalent sunscreen thickness. The overall median sunscreen thickness was 0.5 mg/cm2, with median thicknesses of individual sites ranging from 0 to 1.2 mg/cm2. The most frequently missed sites were the posterior neck, lateral neck, temples and ears, all of which had median thicknesses of 0 mg/cm2. Hence, photosensitive patients fail to apply sunscreen in some prominently exposed sites, and use average thicknesses far less than the manufacturers' recommendation (2 mg/cm2). The level of protection is much lower than anticipated from the stated SPF of the product.

Meloxicam in acute UV dermatitis--a pilot study

The non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) meloxicam is a preferential cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) antagonist. The UV protective potential of this drug was studied to compare it with the reported beneficial effects of such preferentially COX-1 specific NSAIDs as indomethacin and acetylsalicylic acid in the literature. In a pilot study (open-label, non-randomized, non-controlled, unblinded), 10 patients received UV irradiation with the minimal erythema dose (MED), first with meloxicam (7.5 mg/die) to reduce post-operative pain and second without ingestion of meloxicam. The factor of UV protection was evaluated. In six of ten patients meloxicam showed no benefit, whereas four of ten patients had a 1.3- up to 3-fold UV protection. In this study, the benefit in UV protection of meloxicam as a preferential COX-2 antagonist was not above the reported benefit of the "old" COX-1 inhibiting NSAIDS.

Protection against photodynamic therapy (PDT)-induced photosensitivity by fabric materials

"Special" highly protective fabrics are now available that offer broad-spectrum protection in preventing sunburn, and possibly other types of photodamage. It is important to know to what extent these fabrics are capable of protecting the wearer against skin cancer, photosensitivity disorders, and inadvertent phototoxic reactions from photodynamic therapy (PDT). We assess the ability of one such special (Solumbra) fabric and one "typical" summer fabric to provide protection against PDT phototoxicity produced in tape-stripped Sk-1 hairless mice by topical 5-aminolevulinic acid (ALA) and (primarily) visible light (360-800 nm). Since ALA-derived photosensitizers absorb most of the visible spectrum, results from these studies give a good indication of the photoprotective capability of these fabrics throughout this region. Mice were irradiated dorsally with a Kodak slide projector equipped with a 300 W tungsten-halogen lamp (I0 = 48.3 mW/cm2). After determining the minimal phototoxic dose (MPD) to be 1.40 +/- 0.4 J/cm2, we irradiated the tape-stripped ALA-sensitized mice through the stretched test fabrics with appropriate multiples of the MPD. The special fabric provided protection against 25-30 MPD visible light between 360-800 nm in 14/14 mice. The typical fabric failed to provide protection against 2.5 MPD of the same spectrum. No phototoxic or other adverse responses were seen with either the ALA or light control. In conclusion, the Solumbra fabric is much more protective against ALA photosensitization than the typical fabric. Both appear better at blocking UV than visible light.

Effects of several agents on UVB- and UVA plus systemic fluoroquinolone-induced erythema of guinea pig skin evaluated by reflectance colorimetry

The aim of this study was to clarify the mechanisms underlying the erythema of guinea pig skin induced by ultraviolet (UV) irradiation alone and in combination with a systemic fluoroquinolone (FQ). The effects of several drugs which may modify the actions of some inflammatory mediators and radicals possibly released in the inflamed site on the erythema were examined and compared in an objective and quantitative way by measuring the change in color of the irradiated skin, determined as the change in chroma (C*) with use of reflectance colorimetry. After confirming that the C* value increased in an irradiation dose-dependent manner and reached a plateau 1-2 h after irradiation of UVB alone or UVA coadministered with an FQ, Y-26611 (10 mg/kg, i.p.), guinea pigs were pretreated with indomethacin, butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT) or beta-carotene before, or treated with H1- or H2-receptor antagonist, superoxide dismutase or N omega-nitro-L- arginine methyl ester after UV irradiation, and their inhibitory effects against erythema were evaluated. It was suggested that there are some substantial differences between UVB- and UVA plus FQ-induced erythemas. Although histamine makes little contribution to both types of erythema, metabolites of arachidonic acid catalyzed by cyclooxygenase contribute more to UVB-induced erythema, whereas superoxides take more part in UVA plus FQ-induced erythema. Furthermore, nitric oxide seems to participate in both types of erythema; however, the pretreatment with BHT or beta-carotene was ineffective against both erythemas. From these results, interventions should be directed to powerfully scavenging radicals for prevention and treatment of UV plus FQ-induced phototoxicity.

Effects of topically applied antioxidants in experimentally provoked polymorphous light eruption

BACKGROUND

Polymorphous light eruption (PLE) is the most common photodermatosis, with a prevalence of 10-20% in Western European countries and in the USA. Only few preventive measures for PLE exist, while its etiology and pathogenesis are still elusive. Recent theories on pathogenesis discuss the possible influence of oxidative stress.

OBJECTIVE

The presented randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study examines for the first time the protective effect of 3 different topically applied antioxidative preparations in experimentally photo-induced PLE.

METHOD

30 patients with a history of PLE underwent photoprovocation after having had applied 3 different formulations with antioxidants and one formulation with the vehicle only to the extensor surface of their upper arms, representing the individual site of predilection, twice daily for 1 week prior to and during the consecutive week of photoprovocation. The antioxidants used were combinations of different concentrations of alpha-glycosylrutin, ferulic acid and tocopheryl acetate.

RESULTS

Evaluation after the 4th photoprovocation revealed that the development and severity of PLE and concomitant pruritus were significantly reduced by the application of distinct combinations of antioxidants.

CONCLUSION

The results offer a new insight into possible pathomechanisms of PLE and suggest a new approach for preventive and therapeutic measures.

Solar urticaria. A report of 25 cases and difficulties in phototesting

BACKGROUND

Solar urticaria is a rare photosensitive disease, and its differential diagnosis with respect to polymorphous light eruption is sometimes difficult. We report our experience with 25 cases of solar urticaria and discuss the pitfalls in phototesting such patients.

OBSERVATION

The most important locations in this patient series are the V of the neck and the arms, which are similar to those of polymorphous light eruption. In all of the patients, however, the lesions appeared within 30 minutes of sun exposure or phototesting and disappeared within 24 hours. Notably, 12 (48%) of the patients had a history of atopy. Phototesting helps confirm the diagnosis, but, in some patients, this was difficult.

CONCLUSIONS

A negative phototest result from a single light source does not necessarily exclude a diagnosis of solar urticaria. In patients in whom phototesting elicits negative reactions, other light sources should be used, and, if the phototest result is still negative, a provocative test with natural sunlight should be done. Histamine1-receptor antihistamines are a useful first-line therapy, although more severely affected persons may require prophylactic courses of phototherapy or photochemotherapy. The main problem is maintenance treatment.

A prospective longitudinal study of the outdoor behaviour and symptoms of photosensitive patients

The purpose of this study was to determine the measures that photosensitive patients use to control their sun exposure. Each week from March until September 1995, 30 patients with polymorphic light eruption (PLE) and 17 patients with chronic actinic dermatitis (CAD) returned a set of reply paid postcards on which they recorded information about their outdoor behaviour and symptoms. The principal differences between the two groups were that CAD patients had a much greater incidence of symptoms despite making more use of protective measures such as covering arms, wearing hats and applying sunscreen, than patients with PLE. And that as summer approached the PLE patients spent more time outdoors, whereas there was less seasonal variation in this respect among CAD patients. Tentative conclusions drawn from mathematical modelling indicated that the incidence of rash on a particular day was influenced by ambient ultraviolet radiation and length of time spent outdoors. There were indications that wearing a hat and keeping the arms covered offered some protection, whereas use of sunscreen may actually increase the likelihood of symptoms.

Prolonged benefit following ultraviolet A phototherapy for solar urticaria

Two patients with severe idiopathic solar urticaria, previously resistant to a variety of therapies including plasma exchange, benefited from springtime courses of ultraviolet A (UVA) monotherapy. Sites which are normally exposed to sunlight were treated, in a cabinet fitted with Philips R-UVA lamps (emitting UVA and visible wavelengths, with peak at 350 nm), twice daily for 2-3 weeks. One patient has been treated in this way for 3, and the other for 2, consecutive years. Repeat monochromator phototesting 3 months after their latest courses of UVA showed a persistent reduction in severity of abnormal photosensitivity. Both patients describe a sustained improvement in their condition lasting over 6 months after treatment.

Photo hen's egg test: a model for phototoxicity

The aim of this investigation was to establish a new model for phototoxicity which is more advanced than the widely used cultures of yeasts, bacteria or cells of various origin, and at the same time to avoid animal testing. We studied the extraembryonal vasculature of the incubated hen's egg. This model was originally introduced by toxicologists as an alternative to the rabbit's eye irritation test (Draize test). In the photo hen's egg test, substances are applied to the embryo's yolk-sac blood vessel system at a non-toxic concentration and are irradiated with 5 J/cm2 ultraviolet A (UVA) (320-400 nm). Promethazine, haematoporphyrin, ciprofloxacin and 8-methoxypsoralen were tested in this system. Death of the embryo, membrane discoloration and haemorrhage are parameters for phototoxic damage, which were recorded during an observation period of 24 h. These well-known phototoxic substances induced pronounced damage of the yolk-sac membrane and blood vessels which was not found in the controls (test substance alone, UVA alone or untreated) using a 2 x 2 factorial test design. The photo hen's egg test serves as a valid screening model for substances supposed to be photosensitizers owing to a phototoxic mechanism.

[Influence of seasons on risk of flare-up of systemic lupus: retrospective study of 66 patients]

PURPOSE

To establish the possible connection between visceral, arthro-cutaneous and biological spreading of systemic lupus (SL) and hours of sunlight.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Retrospective study of 66 SL patients, consisting of 52 visceral and 14 arthro-cutaneous cases taking into account the chronological pattern of each new aggravation, based on 480 clinical records.

RESULTS

Increased frequency in visceral aggravation was observed in the post-summer period (August-January) (n = 57), as compared with the pre-summer period (February-July) (n = 25) (RR = 1.75, P = 0.006). This post-summer visceral aggravation was correlated with cutaneous affection (RR = 4.18) and absence of previous corticotherapy (RR = 3.97). Visceral and arthro-cutaneous aggravations taken together revealed a more disturbed immune balance pattern in the post-summer period (anti-dsDNA: 30 versus 25.1 IU/L [P = 0.07]; C3: 0.83 vs 0.921 IU/L [P = 0.05]; C4: 0.146 vs 0.183 [P = 0.05]), providing evidence of greater severity. Moderate thrombopenia (50-120 10(9)/L) accompanying visceral SL with antiphospholipids (n = 33) was more frequent during the post-summer period, even in the absence of aggravation (P = 0.03). The quarterly distribution of visceral aggravations was correlated with average hours of sunlight in the preceding quarter (P = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

There is a post-summer increase in the frequency and severity of visceral SL spreading correlated to cutaneous exacerbation and sunlight.

Phototesting and photoprotection in LE

Photosensitivity and induction of skin lesions following UV radiation is a common problem of patients with cutaneous and systemic forms of lupus erythematosus. The detrimental effect of UV radiation to patients with lupus erythematosus was already recognized in the last century. Skin lesions can now be provoked under standardized conditions allowing the diagnosis and classification of patients with photosensitive disorders. The aim of this review is to give an overview on the history, test procedure and test results in patients with lupus erythematosus.

Drug photosensitivity, idiopathic photodermatoses, and sunscreens

Photosensitization may be defined as a process in which a reaction to normally innocuous radiation is induced by the introduction of a specific radiation-absorbing substance (the photosensitizer) that causes another component (the substrate) to be changed by the radiation. This review focuses on photosensitization produced by exogenous chemicals. Idiopathic photodermatoses, including polymorphous light eruption and its variants, solar urticaria and chronic actinic dermatitis, are also discussed. Clinical recognition patterns of the photodermatoses are stressed as well as several diagnostic procedures available for confirmation of the condition. Finally, descriptions, therapeutic uses, and adverse reactions of sunscreens are provided.

Lack of microbial proliferation and phototoxic potential of a new matrix patch for estradiol delivery

OBJECTIVES

To examine the potential of a new matrix system developed for estradiol delivery to cause microbial proliferation under the occluded site or to cause acute phototoxicity reactions.

METHODS

Twenty healthy post-menopausal women participated in a microbial proliferation study and 11 in a phototoxicity study. Both studies were single centre, single blind and placebo controlled. Microbial proliferation was assessed by quantitative counts of the total aerobic bacterial population and of eight individual species before patch application and after removal following a 4 day application period on the abdomen. Acute phototoxicity potential was assessed following an 8 h application period on the abdomen by irradiating the application site after patch removal with ultra violet A radiation and visible light and evaluating the sites for up to 48 h post irradiation. Non-irradiated active and placebo patches on the other side of the abdomen served as controls.

RESULTS

Total aerobic bacterial populations both before and after the matrix patch application period were low as expected for dry skin. Separate counts of microbial species were also low and did not change in any meaningful or consistent manner after patch application. In the phototoxicity study, mild erythema was observed in some patients at 0, 0.5 and 24 h post patch removal with no differences between irradiated and non-irradiated sites.

CONCLUSIONS

These two studies demonstrate that a new matrix patch developed for estradiol delivery does not promote microbial proliferation under the occluded patch site or cause acute phototoxicity following removal.

Ultraviolet-A1 (340-400 nm) irradiation therapy in systemic lupus erythematosus

Ultraviolet-A1 (UV-A1) wavelengths have been found effective in mitigating signs and symptoms of disease activity in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) but studies have been uncontrolled. To rigorously assess the effectiveness and safety of daily low-dose UV-A1 irradiation as a therapeutic agent in this disorder we enrolled 26 women with SLE in an 18-week two-phase study. During the initial six-week prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase, the patients were divided into two groups; Group A was exposed to 60kJ/m2 of UV-A1 (340-400 nm) irradiation within a sunbed five days a week for three weeks and Group B was exposed for an equal amount of time to visible light of greater than > 430 nm (placebo). Each group was then crossed over for exposure to the other source for three weeks. During the second phase-2 weeks-patients and physicians were unblinded and patients were irradiated with progressively decreasing levels of UV-A1 only. Twenty-five patients completed the six-week placebo-controlled phase of the study and eighteen patients participated for the entire 18 weeks. In Group A the systemic lupus activity measure (SLAM) score improved significantly after three weeks of five-day-a-week UV-A1 irradiation (P < 0.05), regressing to baseline during the three weeks of placebo irradiation. Improvement recurred and progressed with six weeks of three-day-a-week UV-A1 irradiation (P < 0.05). Group B patients responded negligibly to the three weeks of visible light, more sharply to UV-A1, and as with Group A, maximally to the six weeks of three-day-a-week UV-A1 (P < 0.01). With twice- and then once-weekly UV-A1 irradiation the SLAM scores worsened slightly. All patients decreased their drug use. Anti-double-stranded DNA antibodies (anti-dsDNA) decreased significantly (P < 0.05) and anti-nuclear antibodies non-significantly. Side effects were negligible. Visible light had no significant effect. In conclusion, low-dose UV-A1 irradiation effectively, comfortably, and without apparent toxicity diminished signs and symptoms of disease activity in SLE.

Narrow-band UVB (TL-01) phototherapy: an effective preventative treatment for the photodermatoses

Twenty patients with photodermatoses [actinic prurigo (n = 6), hydroa vacciniforme (n = 4), idiopathic solar urticaria (n = 1), amiodarone-induced photosensitivity (n = 1) and a range of cutaneous porphyrias (n = 8)] were treated with a 'hardening' course of narrow-band ultraviolet B (TL-01) phototherapy in springtime. The response to phototherapy was monitored subjectively, by interviewing patients after the summer, and objectively by monochromator phototesting, before and after phototherapy. Fifteen patients reported that treatment was worthwhile. Monochromator phototesting after phototherapy revealed a fourfold increase in the minimal erythema dose in those with abnormal photosensitivity to ultraviolet A wavebands. Adverse effects included erythema (seven patients), pruritus (five) and provocation of the eruption (four). We now routinely consider narrow-band UVB phototherapy for problem photodermatoses.