S1-Guidelines on UV phototherapy and photochemotherapy

A randomized, placebo-controlled, trial to assess the photosensitizing, phototoxic and carcinogenic potential of hydrochlorothiazide in healthy volunteers

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Pharmacovigilance reports, associating hydrochlorothiazide (HCT) with skin cancer, resulted in a significant decrease of HCT prescriptions for hypertension and heart failure. Whether HCT exhibits phototoxic properties thereby causing skin cancer remains unknown. This study aimed to examine the photosensitizing, phototoxic and carcinogenic potential of HCT in a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial in vivo and also in vitro .

METHODS

The trial assigned 30 healthy, normotensive adult volunteers in a 2:1 ratio to either HCT 25 mg/day or placebo for 15 days. Photosensitivity of the skin with and without the effect of HCT treatment were assessed. Following whole-body ultraviolet A (UVA) and B (UVB, 311 nm) irradiation, phototoxic and carcinogenic reactions by measuring urinary excretion of pyrimidine dimers were evaluated. For the in-vitro studies, human keratinocytes (HaCaT) were incubated with HCT, irradiated with UVB, and analysed for markers of inflammation, apoptosis and carcinogenesis.

RESULTS

Skin photosensitivity following exposure to UVA and UVB remained unchanged from baseline to 15-day follow-up in both groups (UVA change HCT 0.0 J/cm 2 vs. placebo 0.0 J/cm 2 ; P  = 0.99; UVB change HCT 0.0 J/cm 2 vs. placebo -0.2 J/cm 2 ; P  = 0.06). Pyrimidine dimers were not detected in either group. In vitro , combination of HCT and UVB irradiation did not induce the expression of oxidative stress marker proteins, inflammatory proteins, apoptotic proteins or activation of oncoproteins.

CONCLUSION

HCT did not increase photosensitivity for UVA or UVB in healthy volunteers compared with placebo, and was not associated with phototoxic or carcinogenic reactions. In vitro , HCT was also not associated with phototoxicity or carcinogenesis (NCT04654312).

Phototherapy: Theory and practice

Despite the development of highly effective biologics for skin diseases such as psoriasis or atopic dermatitis, UVA and UVB therapy, alone or in combination, are still essential components of various guidelines. Phototherapy is not only a first-line treatment and highly effective for a number of skin diseases, but is also economical and has few side effects. The targeted use of UVA and UVB, if necessary, in combination with the photosensitizer psoralen in the context of PUVA therapy, enables the dermatologist to effectively treat a wide variety of skin diseases. Indications for phototherapy include epidermal diseases such as atopic dermatitis, psoriasis and vitiligo, as well as photodermatoses, mycosis fungoides, graft-versus-host disease and deep dermal diseases such as scleroderma. This article reviews the physical principles, molecular mechanisms, current treatment regimens, and individual indications for phototherapy and photochemotherapy.

Phototherapie in Theorie und Praxis

Die Therapie oder Kombinationstherapie mit UV‐A‐ oder UV‐B‐Strahlen ist trotz der Entwicklung hochwirksamer Biologika bei Hauterkrankungen wie Psoriasis oder atopischer Dermatitis nach wie vor unverzichtbarer Bestandteil verschiedener Leitlinienempfehlungen. Die Phototherapie ist nicht nur eine sehr effektive Erstlinientherapie bei verschiedenen Hauterkrankungen, sondern auch kostengünstig und nebenwirkungsarm. Der gezielte Einsatz von UV‐A und UV‐B, gegebenenfalls auch in Kombination mit dem Photosensibilisator Psoralen im Rahmen einer PUVA‐Therapie, ermöglicht dem Dermatologen eine effektive Behandlung verschiedener Hautkrankheiten. Indikationen für die Phototherapie sind epidermale Erkrankungen wie die atopische Dermatitis, die Psoriasis und die Vitiligo, ferner Photodermatosen, die Mycosis fungoides, die Graft‐versus‐Host‐Erkrankung sowie tiefe dermale Erkrankungen wie die Sklerodermie. Dieser Artikel gibt einen Überblick über die physikalischen Grundlagen, die molekularen Mechanismen, die derzeitigen Behandlungsmethoden und die einzelnen Indikationen für die Phototherapie und die Photochemotherapie.

Long-term exposure to low levels of ambient UVB are associated with a decreased risk of moderate-to-severe acne: A retrospective cohort study in college students

BACKGROUND

As a crucial component of solar radiation, the association between exposure to ambient ultraviolet (UV) radiation and acne remains unclear.

METHODS

This was a multicenter retrospective cohort study of incoming college students in five universities of China. Previous exposure (6 years prior to enrollment) to different wavelengths of ambient UVs were obtained from public repositories by linking to individual hometown addresses. Logistic models were applied to assess the relationship between ambient UV exposure and acne. Subgroup analysis was conducted by sun protection behaviors and time of daily sun exposure. Overall effect and single effect of exposure to four different wavelengths of UVs (305, 310, 324, and 380 nm) were estimated by Bayesian kernel machine regression (BKMR).

RESULTS

A total of 19,939 participants was included for analysis. Analysis in all participants showed a significant association between log-transformation levels of exposure to UV at 305 nm (log (UV 305 nm)) and acne (OR = 0.77, p = .021). The effect size was stronger in participants reporting no sun protection habit. Both UVs at 305 nm (OR = 0.51, p = .001) and 310 nm (OR = 0.50, p = .012) were associated a decreased risk of acne in participants reporting no sun protection habit. This inverse association was also observed in those exposed to low levels of UV (<1 h/day). The BKMR indicated consistent results that low levels of exposure to UVs combination and UVs at 305 and 310 nm were associated with a lower risk of acne.

CONCLUSION

Long-term exposure to relatively low levels of ambient UVB are associated with a decreased risk of moderate-to-severe acne in college students.

Photoinduced skin reactions of cardiovascular drugs-a systematic review

This systemic review aims to provide a practical overview of the prevalence, clinical manifestation, and management of adverse photoinduced skin reactions caused by frequently used cardiovascular drugs and to assess their potential relevance for skin cancer development. Data search included PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. A systematic review of peer-reviewed studies reporting the photosensitizing and/or skin cancer-inducing properties of common cardiovascular drugs was performed and a guide to clinical management of photoinduced skin eruptions by cardiovascular drugs was provided. Study quality was assessed for major methodological biases. A total of 58 studies were identified (i.e. 23 case reports, 14 observational studies, 10 review articles, 10 experimental studies, and 1 meta-analysis). Most commonly, drug-associated adverse photoinduced cutaneous reactions were caused by phototoxic and photoallergic mechanisms. There is evidence suggesting that amiodarone and dronedarone, thiazide diuretics, thiazide-like diuretics, angiotensin receptor blockers, dihydropyridine-type calcium channel blockers, and certain angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and statins may cause photoinduced adverse cutaneous reactions. Other drugs such as anticoagulants, antiplatelets, aldosterone antagonists, and fibrates have not been linked with photosensitizing reactions or adverse cutaneous reactions. Some drugs, i.e. thiazides and thiazide-like diuretics, were associated with an increased risk of non-melanoma skin cancers (basal cell carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma). Certain commonly used cardiovascular drugs have been associated with adverse photoinduced cutaneous reactions. If they occur, further diagnosis and treatment might be needed, depending on the severity and progress. Whether photosensitizing drugs increase the risk of skin cancer remains elusive and further randomized controlled trials are required.

Phototherapy for atopic eczema

BACKGROUND

Atopic eczema (AE), also known as atopic dermatitis, is a chronic inflammatory skin condition that causes significant burden. Phototherapy is sometimes used to treat AE when topical treatments, such as corticosteroids, are insufficient or poorly tolerated.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of phototherapy for treating AE.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov to January 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials in adults or children with any subtype or severity of clinically diagnosed AE. Eligible comparisons were any type of phototherapy versus other forms of phototherapy or any other treatment, including placebo or no treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodology. For key findings, we used RoB 2.0 to assess bias, and GRADE to assess certainty of the evidence. Primary outcomes were physician-assessed signs and patient-reported symptoms. Secondary outcomes were Investigator Global Assessment (IGA), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), safety (measured as withdrawals due to adverse events), and long-term control.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 32 trials with 1219 randomised participants, aged 5 to 83 years (mean: 28 years), with an equal number of males and females. Participants were recruited mainly from secondary care dermatology clinics, and study duration was, on average, 13 weeks (range: 10 days to one year). We assessed risk of bias for all key outcomes as having some concerns or high risk, due to missing data, inappropriate analysis, or insufficient information to assess selective reporting. Assessed interventions included: narrowband ultraviolet B (NB-UVB; 13 trials), ultraviolet A1 (UVA1; 6 trials), broadband ultraviolet B (BB-UVB; 5 trials), ultraviolet AB (UVAB; 2 trials), psoralen plus ultraviolet A (PUVA; 2 trials), ultraviolet A (UVA; 1 trial), unspecified ultraviolet B (UVB; 1 trial), full spectrum light (1 trial), Saalmann selective ultraviolet phototherapy (SUP) cabin (1 trial), saltwater bath plus UVB (balneophototherapy; 1 trial), and excimer laser (1 trial). Comparators included placebo, no treatment, another phototherapy, topical treatment, or alternative doses of the same treatment. Results for key comparisons are summarised (for scales, lower scores are better): NB-UVB versus placebo/no treatment There may be a larger reduction in physician-assessed signs with NB-UVB compared to placebo after 12 weeks of treatment (mean difference (MD) -9.4, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.62 to -15.18; 1 trial, 41 participants; scale: 0 to 90). Two trials reported little difference between NB-UVB and no treatment (37 participants, four to six weeks of treatment); another reported improved signs with NB-UVB versus no treatment (11 participants, nine weeks of treatment). NB-UVB may increase the number of people reporting reduced itch after 12 weeks of treatment compared to placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.72, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.69; 1 trial, 40 participants). Another trial reported very little difference in itch severity with NB-UVB (25 participants, four weeks of treatment). The number of participants with moderate to greater global improvement may be higher with NB-UVB than placebo after 12 weeks of treatment (RR 2.81, 95% CI 1.10 to 7.17; 1 trial, 41 participants). NB-UVB may not affect rates of withdrawal due to adverse events. No withdrawals were reported in one trial of NB-UVB versus placebo (18 participants, nine weeks of treatment). In two trials of NB-UVB versus no treatment, each reported one withdrawal per group (71 participants, 8 to 12 weeks of treatment). We judged that all reported outcomes were supported with low-certainty evidence, due to risk of bias and imprecision. No trials reported HRQoL. NB-UVB versus UVA1 We judged the evidence for NB-UVB compared to UVA1 to be very low certainty for all outcomes, due to risk of bias and imprecision. There was no evidence of a difference in physician-assessed signs after six weeks (MD -2.00, 95% CI -8.41 to 4.41; 1 trial, 46 participants; scale: 0 to 108), or patient-reported itch after six weeks (MD 0.3, 95% CI -1.07 to 1.67; 1 trial, 46 participants; scale: 0 to 10). Two split-body trials (20 participants, 40 sides) also measured these outcomes, using different scales at seven to eight weeks; they reported lower scores with NB-UVB. One trial reported HRQoL at six weeks (MD 2.9, 95% CI -9.57 to 15.37; 1 trial, 46 participants; scale: 30 to 150). One split-body trial reported no withdrawals due to adverse events over 12 weeks (13 participants). No trials reported IGA. NB-UVB versus PUVA We judged the evidence for NB-UVB compared to PUVA (8-methoxypsoralen in bath plus UVA) to be very low certainty for all reported outcomes, due to risk of bias and imprecision. There was no evidence of a difference in physician-assessed signs after six weeks (64.1% reduction with NB-UVB versus 65.7% reduction with PUVA; 1 trial, 10 participants, 20 sides). There was no evidence of a difference in marked improvement or complete remission after six weeks (odds ratio (OR) 1.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 7.89; 1 trial, 9/10 participants with both treatments). One split-body trial reported no withdrawals due to adverse events in 10 participants over six weeks. The trials did not report patient-reported symptoms or HRQoL. UVA1 versus PUVA There was very low-certainty evidence, due to serious risk of bias and imprecision, that PUVA (oral 5-methoxypsoralen plus UVA) reduced physician-assessed signs more than UVA1 after three weeks (MD 11.3, 95% CI -0.21 to 22.81; 1 trial, 40 participants; scale: 0 to 103). The trial did not report patient-reported symptoms, IGA, HRQoL, or withdrawals due to adverse events. There were no eligible trials for the key comparisons of UVA1 or PUVA compared with no treatment. Adverse events Reported adverse events included low rates of phototoxic reaction, severe irritation, UV burn, bacterial superinfection, disease exacerbation, and eczema herpeticum.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to placebo or no treatment, NB-UVB may improve physician-rated signs, patient-reported symptoms, and IGA after 12 weeks, without a difference in withdrawal due to adverse events. Evidence for UVA1 compared to NB-UVB or PUVA, and NB-UVB compared to PUVA was very low certainty. More information is needed on the safety and effectiveness of all aspects of phototherapy for treating AE.

Phototherapy

Of all the therapeutic options available in Dermatology, few of them have the history, effectiveness, and safety of phototherapy. Heliotherapy, NB-UVB, PUVA, and UVA1 are currently the most common types of phototherapy used. Although psoriasis is the most frequent indication, it is used for atopic dermatitis, vitiligo, cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, and cutaneous sclerosis, among others. Before indicating phototherapy, a complete patient assessment should be performed. Possible contraindications should be actively searched for and it is essential to assess whether the patient can come to the treatment center at least twice a week. One of the main method limitations is the difficulty that patients have to attend the sessions. This therapy usually occurs in association with other treatments: topical or systemic medications. Maintaining the regular monitoring of the patient is essential to identify and treat possible adverse effects. Phototherapy is recognized for its benefits and should be considered whenever possible.

Does UV Light as an Adjunct to Conventional Treatment Improve Healing and Reduce Infection in Wounds? A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

To examine the effect of UV light on wound healing and infection in patients with skin ulcers or surgical incisions. Outcomes of interest included healing time, wound size and appearance, bacterial burden, and infection.

DATA SOURCES

Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, PubMed, CINAHL, and Web of Science.

STUDY SELECTION

Comparative and noncomparative clinical studies were considered, including observational cohort, retrospective, and randomized controlled studies. They addressed the research question: "Does the use of UV light as an adjunct to conventional treatment help improve healing and reduce infection in wounds?" Selection criteria included any English language study in adults who used UV light to improve wound healing and prevent or treat wound infection.

DATA EXTRACTION

Authors extracted information pertaining to patient demographics, treatment protocols, and the following wound outcomes: appearance, healing time, infection, and bacterial burden.

DATA SYNTHESIS

The search yielded 30,986 articles, and screening resulted in 11 studies that underwent final analysis. Of these (N = 27,833), seven (64%) demonstrated an improvement in healing outcomes with adjunctive UV therapy, and the results of four (36%) achieved statistical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

There is limited research on the utility of adjunctive UV therapy to improve wound healing outcomes in humans. The majority of literature included in this review supported improved wound healing outcomes with adjuvant UV therapy. Future well-designed randomized controlled trials will be essential in further determining the benefit and utility of UV therapy in wound healing.

6-Nitro-Quinazolin-4(3H)-one Exhibits Photodynamic Effects and Photodegrades Human Melanoma Cell Lines. A Study on the Photoreactivity of Simple Quinazolin-4(3H)-ones

Photochemo and photodynamic therapies are minimally invasive approaches for the treatment of cancers and powerful weapons for competing bacterial resistance to antibiotics. Synthetic and naturally occurring quinazolinones are considered privileged anticancer and antibacterial agents, with several of them to have emerged as commercially available drugs. In the present study, applying a single-step green microwave irradiation mediated protocol we have synthesized eleven quinazolinon-4(3H)-ones, from cheap readily available anthranilic acids, in very good yields and purity. These products were irradiated in the presence of pBR322 plasmid DNA under UVB, UVA and visible light. Four of the compounds proved to be very effective DNA photocleavers, at low concentrations, being time and concentration dependent as well as pH independent. Participation of reactive oxygen species was related to the substitution of quinazolinone derivatives. 6-Nitro-quinazolinone in combination with UVA irradiation was found to be in vitro photodestructive for three cell lines; glioblastoma (U87MG and T98G) and mainly melanoma (A-375). Thus, certain appropriately substituted quinazolinones may serve as new lead photosensitizers for the development of promising biotechnological applications and as novel photochemo and photodynamic therapeutics.

Inpatient Management of Mucocutaneous GVHD

Purpose of Review

Graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) is an immune mediated disorder affecting 30 - 70% of patients after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (alloHSCT), and is a major cause of morbidity and non-relapse mortality (NRM) [1]. Dermatologists play a critical role in acute and chronic GVHD, as skin involvement is common and often the earliest involved site of disease [2].

Recent Findings

GVHD shares clinical and histopathological features with a variety of other skin diseases, requiring thorough consideration of differential diagnoses in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) recipients with lesions suggestive of cutaneous GVHD. Treatment considerations for GVHD are influenced by factors such as disease classification, overall grading, organ involvement, associated symptoms, and immunological anti-tumor effect. Several treatments are available and may be indicated as monotherapy or adjuvant therapy to allow faster withdrawal or tapering of immunosuppression. While corticosteroids are often first line therapy, oral ruxolitinib has been recently approved for treatment of steroid-refractory aGHVD, and oral ibrutinib has been approved for steroid-refractory cGHVD.

Summary

This article provides current clinical, diagnostic, and therapeutic considerations relevant to the hospitalist for both acute and chronic mucocutaneous GVHD. Optimal inpatient management of these diseases requires an interdisciplinary team.

Biological effects of a new ultraviolet A1 prototype based on light-emitting diodes on the treatment of localized scleroderma

Ultraviolet A₁ (UVA₁ ) phototherapy (spectral range 340-400 nm) is a well-established treatment option for various skin diseases such as localized scleroderma. Recent improvements of conventional UVA₁ light sources (metal-halide or fluorescent lamps) have brought attention to a new light-emitting diode (LED) technology with remarkable advantages in handling and clinical routine. This study provides a preclinical histological and molecular evaluation of an LED-based UVA₁ prototype with a narrower spectral range (360-400 nm) for treating localized scleroderma. Scleroderma mouse models and fibroblasts in vitro were exposed to LED-based UVA₁ phototherapy or to irradiation with a commercially available metal-halide lamp emitting low-dose (20, 40 J/cm² ), medium-dose (60 J/cm² ) and high-dose (80, 100 J/cm² ) UVA₁ light. Both UVA₁ light sources affected inflammatory genes (IL-1α and IL-6) and growth factors (TGFß-1 and TGFß-2). Increased collagen type 1 was reduced after UVA₁ phototherapy. Matrix metalloproteinase-1 was more enhanced after a medium dose of LED-based UVA₁ phototherapy than after conventional treatment. In vivo, dermal thickness and the amount of collagen were reduced after both treatment methods. Remarkably, myofibroblasts were more effectively reduced by a medium dose of LED-based UVA₁ phototherapy. The study indicates that LED-based UVA₁ phototherapy yields similar or even better results than conventional treatment. In terms of biosafety and patient comfort, LED-based UVA₁ phototherapy offers clear advantages over conventional treatment because of the use of a narrower and less harmful UVA₁ spectrum, less heat generation and shorter treatment times at the same irradiation intensity. Clinical studies are required to confirm these results in patients with localized scleroderma.

COVID-19 effect on phototherapy treatment utilization in dermatology

Background: At the end of 2019, an innovative coronavirus caused an outbreak of pneumonia cases in Wuhan, a city Hubei Province of China. Despite the direct effect on the routine of all life aspects, there are no clinical guidelines regarding phototherapy treatment during COVID-19 pandemic and as a result, phototherapies units continued to deliver this therapy for patients worldwide.Objective: We wish to explore the phototherapy utilization among dermatologic patients.Methods: We marked all patients that continue to arrive and being treated during COVID-19 pandemic.Results: From March more than 50% of patients stopped arriving to treatments due to the fear of COVID-19 infection.Conclusions: COVID-19 has a major implication on chronic dermatology treatments such as phototherapy.

Phototherapy for Cutaneous T-Cell Lymphoma

Phototherapy with psoralen and ultraviolet A (PUVA) or narrowband-UVB (NBUVB) is frequently used for the patch and plaque stages of mycosis fungoides (MF), the most common type of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. This article provides practical guidelines for the design and implementation of a phototherapy protocol for early stage MF, including an overview of treatment phases, response criteria, and considerations in the selection of a light source. Several evolving topics in phototherapy research are also discussed, including the relative efficacy of PUVA versus NBUVB, the role of maintenance therapy, risk of photocarcinogenicity, and combination therapies.

Successful treatment of verruca plana with NB-UVB: A case report

Verruca plana is a kind of benign proliferative skin disease that generally occurs in exposed parts, but the treatment of warts poses a therapeutic challenge for physicians, as there is no method, among numerous approaches, that has been proven effective for completely curing this disease. We report a case of verruca plana cured by narrow-band ultraviolet B (NB-UVB), which provides a new treatment of verruca plana.

Metal-Based Nanostructures/PLGA Nanocomposites: Antimicrobial Activity, Cytotoxicity, and Their Biomedical Applications

Among the different synthetic polymers developed for biomedical applications, poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA) has attracted considerable attention because of its excellent biocompatibility and biodegradability. Nanocomposites based on PLGA and metal-based nanostructures (MNSs) have been employed extensively as an efficient strategy to improve the structural and functional properties of PLGA polymer. The MNSs have been used to impart new properties to PLGA, such as antimicrobial properties and labeling. In the present review, the different strategies available for the fabrication of MNS/PLGA nanocomposites and their applications in the biomedical field will be discussed, beginning with a description of the preparation routes, antimicrobial activity, and cytotoxicity concerns of MNS/PLGA nanocomposites. The biomedical applications of these nanocomposites, such as carriers and scaffolds in tissue regeneration and other therapies are subsequently reviewed. In addition, the potential advantages of using MNS/PLGA nanocomposites in treatment illnesses are analyzed based on in vitro and in vivo studies, to support the potential of these nanocomposites in future research in the biomedical field.

Serum levels of folate, 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 and cobalamin during UVB phototherapy: findings in a large prospective trial

Background

Narrowband UVB phototherapy (NB‐UVB) is a mainstay in the treatment of numerous inflammatory dermatoses. Whereas, a wealth of studies has shown that NB‐UVB treatment increases 25‐hydroxyvitamin D3 (25(OH)D) levels, only sparse and controversial data exist on its effect on serum folate and cobalamin.

Objectives

To determine whether exposure to NB‐UVB alters serum folate or cobalamin levels.

Methods

A single‐centre, prospective, open observational study on 101 patients subjected to NB‐UVB phototherapy between late fall and early spring. Serum folate, 25(OH)D and cobalamin levels were measured after 0, 12, 24 and 36 NB‐UVB exposures.

Results

After 12 NB‐UVB exposures a significant decrease of mean serum folate (−1.0 nmol/L; P = 0.03) and cobalamin (−14.5 pmol/L, P = 0.03) levels was observed whereas serum levels of 25(OH)D showed a significant increase (35.4 nmol/L, P < 0.0001).

Conclusions

A standard course of NB‐UVB induces a small but significant decrease of serum folate and cobalamin levels.

Is there still a role for UV therapy in itch treatment?

Itching is a frequent and greatly distressing symptom related to many skin and systemic diseases. New insights into the pathophysiology of itchy skin and potentially involved mediators have increased the interest in and development of new treatments that specifically act on targets involved in the transmission and perception of itching. Phototherapy has long been known and used as an effective treatment for various kinds of chronic itching. However, despite its well-known beneficial effects, the mechanisms behind the antipruritic effect of phototherapy are less well-known. In addition, phototherapy requires the use of expensive equipment in dermatology offices, patients must undergo repeated treatments and no large, randomized, controlled trials have yet supported the antipruritic effect of UV. Therefore, phototherapy is rarely recommended as a treatment method for chronic pruritic diseases or only used as a last recourse. However, the wide range of pruritic conditions that can be successfully treated with phototherapy, together with its low acute side effects, extremely low frequency of interactions with other medications, possibilities to combine phototherapy with other treatment modalities and the fact that patients of almost all ages-from childhood to old age, including women during pregnancy or lactation-can be treated make UV therapy advantageous over other treatments of chronic pruritus. Thus, despite the development of new targeted therapies against pruritus, UV therapy is neither outdated nor the 'last recourse', but should be considered early on in the treatment of chronic pruritus.

The Antipruritic Effect of Phototherapy

Phototherapy is widely used to treat inflammatory skin diseases such as psoriasis and atopic dermatitis. Repeated suberythemogenic doses of UV-light reduce inflammation in these diseases and ultimately may lead to a complete disappearance of cutaneous symptoms for weeks or months. Chronic pruritus is an important and highly distressing symptom of many of these inflammatory skin diseases. Interestingly, pruritus is also reduced or completely abolished by UV-treatment of psoriasis and atopic dermatitis, and sometimes reduction of pruritus is the first indication for skin improvement by phototherapy. The cutaneous nervous system is an integral part of skin anatomy, and free nerve endings of sensory cutaneous nerve fibers reach up into the epidermis getting in close contact with epidermal cells and mediators from epidermal cells released into the intercellular space. Stimulation of “pruriceptors” within this group of sensory nerve fibers generates a neuronal signal eventually transmitted via the dorsal root and the spinal cord to the brain, where it is recognized as “itch”. UV-light may directly affect cutaneous sensory nerve fibers or, via the release of mediators from cells within the skin, indirectly modulate their function as well as the transmission of itch to the central nervous system inducing the clinically recognized antipruritic effect of phototherapy.

Treatment of seborrheic dermatitis: a comprehensive review

Seborrheic dermatitis (SD) is a chronic, recurring inflammatory skin disorder that manifests as erythematous macules or plaques with varying levels of scaling associated with pruritus. The condition typically occurs as an inflammatory response to Malassezia species and tends to occur on seborrheic areas, such as the scalp, face, chest, back, axilla, and groin areas. SD treatment focuses on clearing signs of the disease; ameliorating associated symptoms, such as pruritus; and maintaining remission with long-term therapy. Since the primary underlying pathogenic mechanisms comprise Malassezia proliferation and inflammation, the most commonly used treatment is topical antifungal and anti-inflammatory agents. Other broadly used therapies include lithium gluconate/succinate, coal tar, salicylic acid, selenium sulfide, sodium sulfacetamide, glycerin, benzoyl peroxide, aloe vera, mud treatment, phototherapy, among others. Alternative therapies have also been reported, such as tea tree oil, Quassia amara, and Solanum chrysotrichum. Systemic therapy is reserved only for widespread lesions or in cases that are refractory to topical treatment. Thus, in this comprehensive review, we summarize the current knowledge on SD treatment and attempt to provide appropriate directions for future cases that dermatologists may face.

Phototherapy in systemic sclerosis: Review

Systemic scleroderma-also known as systemic sclerosis (SSc)-is a chronic systemic connective tissue disease characterized by collagen deposition in cutaneous and internal organs, leading to skin sclerosis and multiple organ fibrosis. The pathogenesis is complex and remains poorly understood. Treatment is based on organ involvement and requires a multidisciplinary approach. Skin sclerosis can cause disability, leading to decreasing quality of life. Various systemic antifibrotic therapies have been used; however, most have unsatisfactory results. Recently, phototherapy and in particular ultraviolet A (UVA) has been used to treat skin sclerosis in SSc patients with satisfactory results. The main mechanisms include lymphocyte apoptosis, cytokine alteration, inhibition of collagen synthesis and increased collagenase production, and neovascularization, leading to the breakdown of collagen fibrils resulting in skin softening or even healing digital ulcers. Most studies reported that psoralen plus UVA (PUVA) and UVA1 phototherapy improved clinical outcomes vis-à-vis skin sclerosis, joint mobility, ulcers, and histopathology. PUVA and UVA1 phototherapy therefore have potential as an alternative or adjunctive therapy for patients with SSc.

The impact of cellular senescence in skin ageing: A notion of mosaic and therapeutic strategies

Cellular senescence is now recognized as one of the nine hallmarks of ageing. Recent data show the involvement of senescent cells in tissue ageing and some age-related diseases. Skin represents an ideal model for the study of ageing. Indeed, skin ageing varies between individuals depending on their chronological age but also on their exposure to various exogenous factors (mainly ultraviolet rays). If senescence traits can be detected with ageing in the skin, the senescent phenotype varies among the various skin cell types. Moreover, the origin of cellular senescence in the skin is still unknown, and multiple origins are possible. This reflects the mosaic of skin ageing. Senescent cells can interfere with their microenvironment, either via the direct secretion of factors (the senescence-associated secretory phenotype) or via other methods of communication, such as extracellular vesicles. Knowledge regarding the impact of cellular senescence on skin ageing could be integrated into dermatology research, especially to limit the appearance of senescent cells after photo(chemo)therapy or in age-related skin diseases. Therapeutic approaches include the clearance of senescent cells via the use of senolytics or via the cooperation with the immune system.