Insights into proton pump inhibitor-induced photosensitivity: An observational study in a tertiary photobiology service

BACKGROUND

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are extensively prescribed but may cause photosensitivity and drug-induced lupus erythematosus (DILE), which can be overlooked as the drug may have been taken for years prior to presentation.

METHODS

We reviewed the clinical and investigation findings of patients diagnosed with PPI-induced photosensitivity, diagnosed through the Scottish Photobiology Service.

RESULTS

We report 11 patients with median age of onset 61-years and mean duration of PPI ingestion of 5-years [DILE (n = 6), phototoxicity (n = 3) and drug-induced solar urticaria through a lupus mechanism (n = 2)]. Five had Anti-Ro antibodies (three also ANA positive). Predominantly UVA and visible light photosensitivity was observed on phototesting.

DISCUSSION

PPIs are a reversible cause of photosensitivity and DILE. Time to onset from drug initiation to symptoms can be prolonged, so clinicians should have a high index of suspicion in those taking PPIs. Most are diagnosed through clinical assessment and lupus serology, with phototesting indicated if there is diagnostic uncertainty.

Photosensitivity is an important cause of refractory facial erythema in atopic dermatitis: A retrospective study of 82 Chinese patients

BACKGROUND

Ultraviolet radiation can aggravate facial erythema in atopic dermatitis (AD) patients.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the photobiological testing results of Chinese AD patients with refractory facial erythema.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of 82 AD patients with refractory facial erythema who visited our department during 2004-2021. All of them completed phototesting and photopatch testing.

RESULTS

82 patients were enrolled in the study, and 53 (64.6%) were between 18 and 30 years old. 51.2% (42/82) had positive phototesting results and were considered photosensitive AD (PhAD) patients. One-third of them were both allergic to ultraviolet A and ultraviolet B. 65.9% (54/82) suffered from photoallergic contact dermatitis. Chlorpromazine (50.7%), potassium dichromate (13.2%), and thimerosal (11.8%) were the top three common photoallergens. Overall, 86.3% of AD patients with refractory facial erythema had direct photoallergy or photocontact allergy. PhAD patients had fewer allergic comorbidities than the other group (p = .007). More non-PhAD patients (55.0%) suffered from AD at 2-14 years old (p = .015).

CONCLUSIONS

Photosensitivity contributes a lot to the facial lesions of AD patients, especially in their 20s. 86.3% of these patients had direct photoallergy or photocontact allergy. Therefore, AD patients with facial erythema should undergo phototesting and photopatch testing routinely.

Minimal Erythema Dose Determination in Holstein Friesian Cattle

Cattle on pasture are continuously exposed to solar UV radiation, which has been associated with biological effects such as sunburn, photosensitization, squamous cell carcinoma, and cutaneous vitamin D₃ production. The minimal erythema dose (MED) required to produce first-degree sunburn (erythema) is poorly researched in cattle. Since cattle are naturally covered with dense hair coats, the MED is influenced by the UV protection offered by the hair. The objective of this study was to determine the MED on intact-hair-covered (MED-H) and shaved white skin (MED-S) of Holstein Friesian cattle. Twenty-one Holstein Friesian cows and heifers were MED tested using a narrowband UV-B LED light (peak irradiance at 292 nm) on eight hair-covered and eight shaved areas over white skin previously unexposed to direct sunlight. Erythema was visually assessed after 24 h. The mean MED-H and MED-S were 5,595 and 329 J/m², respectively. Heifers had a higher MED-H compared to cows, 7,600 and 4,969 J/m², respectively. The mean UV transmittance of white cattle hair was 6.7%. MED-H was correlated with hair length (Spearman's rho = 0.76). A linear regression model showed that each millimeter of hair coat length increased the MED-H by 316 J/m². In conclusion, this study provides a MED testing protocol for cattle and reports standardized values of MED for cattle on intact-hair-covered and shaved areas.

Ultraviolet A phototest positivity is associated with higher free erythrocyte protoporphyrin IX concentration and lower transferrin saturation values in erythropoietic protoporphyria

BACKGROUND

Erythropoietic protoporphyria (EPP) is a rare disorder of heme biosynthesis hallmarked by early-onset photosensitivity and mainly due to defective ferrochelatase activity leading to increased erythrocyte protoporphyrin IX (PPIX) levels. Evidence regarding the relationship between erythrocyte PPIX concentration and photosensitivity is limited.

METHODS

To investigate the relationship between free erythrocyte PPIX (FEP) concentration; routine laboratory tests, particularly iron metabolism biomarkers; and ultraviolet (UV) A/visible light phototesting findings, 20 genetically confirmed EPP and one XLPP treatment-naive patients were included in our study. They underwent UVA and visible light phototesting. On the same day, blood samples were collected for measurement of FEP, serum iron, transferrin, transferrin saturation, and ferritin, 25-hydroxyvitamin D, and liver enzyme levels.

RESULTS

Median FEP concentration at the time of phototesting was 57.50 (IQR: 34.58-102.70) μg/g of Hb. UVA and visible light phototesting were positive in 9 (42.9%) and 8 (38.1%) patients, respectively. Median FEP concentration was significantly higher in UVA phototest-positive patients than in those negative (64.37 [IQR: 57.45-121.82] vs 45.35 [IQR: 24.53-74.61] μg/g of Hb, respectively; P = .04486). Similarly, UVA photosensitive individuals had significantly lower median serum iron levels (61.5 [IQR: 33.5-84] μg/dL vs 109 [IQR: 63.25-154] μg/dL, respectively; P = .01862) and transferrin saturation values (15.005 [IQR: 7.0775-18.41] % vs 29.645 [IQR: 17.8225-34.3575] %; P = .0109) than those negative.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study demonstrates that UVA phototest positivity is associated with higher FEP concentration and lower transferrin saturation and serum iron concentration in EPP.

Evaluation of the minimal erythema dose for UVB and UVA in context of skin phototype and nature of photodermatosis

BACKGROUND

Phototesting is part of the standard procedure for the evaluation of patients with photosensitivity disorders. The response of patients to targeted UVB or UVA radiation helps to find out more about the nature of photodermatosis. Nevertheless, there are no default values of the minimal erythema dose (MED).

METHODS

This study evaluated data of 203 patients (131 female, 72 male, mean age 52 years) who were referred for phototesting to the University Hospital Zurich between 2012 and 2017. We retrospectively analyzed the demographic data, medical history, skin phototype, reaction to UVB and UVA radiation, and, if present, the diagnosis of photodermatosis. In patients who did not develop erythema at the highest tested UV doses, the next logical increment was taken for analysis. In case of UVA, the two periphery doses could not be evaluated due to technical issues, so the closest reliable UVA doses were used.

RESULTS

The MED-UVB correlated with the skin type and increased with a higher phototype. No such correlation could be seen for MED-UVA. However, the MED-UVA was significantly reduced in patients with photodermatosis without significant differences between the subgroups of photodermatosis. More than half of the patients did not show a reduced MED despite a diagnosed photodermatosis.

CONCLUSION

We showed, how different skin types with and without photodermatosis react to UV radiation. Based on the results, we suggested threshold doses that can be chosen for phototesting, presented which doses can be considered pathologic and showed the probability of a pathologic MED in correlation with a diagnosed photodermatosis.

Characteristics and clinical significance of augmentation spectra in solar urticaria

Solar urticaria has unique spectra, such as inhibition and augmentation. The clinical significance of these spectra, especially augmentation, is not well understood. Reported cases of solar urticaria with augmentation spectra are extremely rare in the published English-language work. The purposes of this study were to evaluate the clinical features of solar urticaria with augmentation spectra and to elucidate the mechanisms and clinical importance of the spectra. We experienced 11 cases (five females, six males; mean age, 40.1 years; range, 1-74) of solar urticaria with augmentation spectra from April 2007 to July 2019. Augmentation spectra were UV-B in three cases, UV-A in two, visible light in four, UV-A and UV-B in one, and UV-A and visible light in one. Augmentation spectra were observed before action spectra in four cases, after in six, and before and after in one. Injection of sera irradiated with action spectra and augmentation spectra in vitro induced stronger immediate reactions than those of only action spectrum-irradiated sera in four of five cases. The results of injection tests suggested that augmentation spectra enhance the production of urticaria-forming factor. Clinically, we observed severe urticarial reactions in four cases, including anaphylaxis in three and moderate urticarial reactions in three. These results suggest that augmentation spectra are not as rare as previously thought and that they are associated with the severity of solar urticaria. Therefore, phototesting for both augmentation and action spectra should be performed to provide appropriate guidance for patients with solar urticaria.

Solar urticaria - An Australian case series of 83 patients

Solar urticaria (SU) is a rare form of urticaria with a pathogenesis that is poorly understood. It affects all skin types, can be difficult to diagnose, and is challenging to manage effectively. We conducted a retrospective review of patients with SU in our institution. A total of 83 patients (56 females) were identified as having SU. The mean age was 32 years (7-74) at first development of symptoms/signs of SU. Pruritus was the most common symptom reported (79%). Of the 60 patients who underwent monochromator testing at least once, 35 had SU confirmed with most reacting to visible light and UVA, or to UVA alone. Antihistamines and sun avoidance remain the mainstay treatment for SU but other treatments, including omalizumab, are of potential interest in treating patients with recalcitrant SU. The characterisation of this large case series of patients may help dermatologists recognise and manage this rare disorder appropriately.

Validation of phototesting for estimation of individual skin ultraviolet sensitivity based on a lengthwise attenuating ultraviolet B field

Conventional skin UV-sensitivity phototesting is based on semi-quantitative assessment of minimal erythema dose (MED). This study demonstrates a method for quantitative MED determination, using a lengthwise attenuating UVB-field combined with tissue viability imaging (TiVi). The study aim was to investigate the agreement between MED acquired by traditional phototest and by the new method. Forty-seven voluntary subjects underwent phototesting with a traditional phototest and with the new technique. Test reading, carried out after 24 h, showed moderate agreement between the methods when assessed with TiVi (Kappa value=0.46) and visually (Kappa value=0.48). For the new method, no systematic differences were seen between outcomes assessed with TiVi or visually (95% CI for the mean difference=-1.6-2.0). In conclusion, the results give promising support for the concept of achieving a more precise MED estimation by combining continuous attenuating UV fields with new available bioengineering technology.

Photosensitivity in cutaneous lupus erythematosus

BACKGROUND

Ultraviolet radiation (UVR) is a well-known exacerbating factor for cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE), with photosensitivity comprising one of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) diagnostic criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). However, discerning true photosensitivity in this population is difficult due to the broad language utilized by the ACR and the delayed-onset nature of photosensitive lupus lesions.

AIMS

The objective of this report is to provide a review of photosensitivity, photoprovocation, and phototherapy in the context of CLE patients.

METHODS

A literature review in PubMed was conducted using the terms 'ultraviolet light,' 'lupus erythematosus,' 'photoprovocation,' or 'photosensitivity.'

RESULTS

Self-patient reporting of photosensitivity and the broad definition of photosensitivity have led to the wide range of photosensitivity rates in CLE patients. Photoprovocation testing provides a more objective method to measure photosensitivity, but even these trials demonstrate significant differences due to protocol variations. Despite UVR's deleterious effect on lupus patients, ultraviolet A (UVA)-1 may have therapeutic benefits as shown by observations on murine models and human lupus subjects.

CONCLUSIONS

Accurately discerning photosensitivity has diagnostic implications for SLE and provides motivation for greater patient adherence to photoprotective methods.