Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
15th National Conference of the IAOMFP, Chennai, 2006
Abstract
Abstracts from current literature
Acne in India: Guidelines for management - IAA Consensus Document
Addendum
Announcement
Art & Psychiatry
Article
Articles
Association Activities
Association Notes
Award Article
Book Review
Brief Report
Case Analysis
Case Letter
Case Letters
Case Notes
Case Report
Case Reports
Clinical and Laboratory Investigations
Clinical Article
Clinical Studies
Clinical Study
Commentary
Conference Oration
Conference Summary
Continuing Medical Education
Correspondence
Corrigendum
Cosmetic Dermatology
Cosmetology
Current Best Evidence
Current View
Derma Quest
Dermato Surgery
Dermatopathology
Dermatosurgery Specials
Dispensing Pearl
Do you know?
Drug Dialogues
e-IJDVL
Editor Speaks
Editorial
Editorial Remarks
Editorial Report
Editorial Report - 2007
Editorial report for 2004-2005
Errata
Erratum
Focus
Fourth All India Conference Programme
From Our Book Shelf
From the Desk of Chief Editor
General
Get Set for Net
Get set for the net
Guest Article
Guest Editorial
History
How I Manage?
IADVL Announcement
IADVL Announcements
IJDVL Awards
IJDVL AWARDS 2015
IJDVL Awards 2018
IJDVL Awards 2019
IJDVL Awards 2020
IJDVL International Awards 2018
Images in Clinical Practice
In Memorium
Inaugural Address
Index
Knowledge From World Contemporaries
Leprosy Section
Letter in Response to Previous Publication
Letter to Editor
Letter to the Editor
Letter to the Editor - Case Letter
Letter to the Editor - Letter in Response to Published Article
LETTER TO THE EDITOR - LETTERS IN RESPONSE TO PUBLISHED ARTICLES
Letter to the Editor - Observation Letter
Letter to the Editor - Study Letter
Letter to the Editor - Therapy Letter
Letter to the Editor: Articles in Response to Previously Published Articles
Letters in Response to Previous Publication
Letters to the Editor
Letters to the Editor - Letter in Response to Previously Published Articles
Letters to the Editor: Case Letters
Letters to the Editor: Letters in Response to Previously Published Articles
Medicolegal Window
Messages
Miscellaneous Letter
Musings
Net Case
Net case report
Net Image
Net Letter
Net Quiz
Net Study
New Preparations
News
News & Views
Obituary
Observation Letter
Observation Letters
Oration
Original Article
ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTION
Original Contributions
Pattern of Skin Diseases
Pearls
Pediatric Dermatology
Pediatric Rounds
Perspective
Presedential Address
Presidential Address
Presidents Remarks
Quiz
Recommendations
Regret
Report
Report of chief editor
Report of Hon : Treasurer IADVL
Report of Hon. General Secretary IADVL
Research Methdology
Research Methodology
Resident page
Resident's Page
Resident’s Page
Residents' Corner
Residents' Corner
Residents' Page
Retraction
Review
Review Article
Review Articles
Revision Corner
Self Assessment Programme
SEMINAR
Seminar: Chronic Arsenicosis in India
Seminar: HIV Infection
Short Communication
Short Communications
Short Report
Special Article
Specialty Interface
Studies
Study Letter
Supplement-Photoprotection
Supplement-Psoriasis
Symposium - Contact Dermatitis
Symposium - Lasers
Symposium - Pediatric Dermatoses
Symposium - Psoriasis
Symposium - Vesicobullous Disorders
SYMPOSIUM - VITILIGO
Symposium Aesthetic Surgery
Symposium Dermatopathology
Symposium-Hair Disorders
Symposium-Nails Part I
Symposium-Nails-Part II
Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis
Tables
Technology
Therapeutic Guidelines
Therapeutic Guidelines - IADVL
Therapeutics
Therapy
Therapy Letter
View Point
Viewpoint
What’s new in Dermatology

Translate this page into:
[gtranslate]

Original Article
2002:68:2;86-87
PMID: 17656886

Five years experience of photopatch testing in 50 patients

Pramila A Kanchan, Shrutakirthi D Shenoi, C Balachandran
 Department of Skin and STD, Kasturba Medical College and Hospital, Manipal - 576 119, Karnataka, India

Correspondence Address:
Shrutakirthi D Shenoi
Department of Skin and STD, Kasturba Medical College and Hospital, Manipal - 576 119, Karnataka
India
How to cite this article:
Kanchan PA, Shenoi SD, Balachandran C. Five years experience of photopatch testing in 50 patients. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol 2002;68:86-87
Copyright: (C)2002 Indian Journal of Dermatology, Venereology, and Leprology

Abstract

Photopatch testing with Scandinavian photopatch series was done in 50 patients with photodermatitis. The frequent photosensitisers were musk ambrette, chlorpromazine, promethazine, and PABA.
Keywords: Photopatch testing, photosensitisers

Introduction

Photopatch test serves as a tool to identify photosensitisers. Until the early 1980′s, photopatch testing was not standardised. The procedure varied between dermatologic centers, among different countries and internationally. The first attempt to standardise the method was initiated by the Scandinavian Photodermatitis Research group in 1982. The purpose of this study was to detect the common photosensitisers in patients presenting with clinical features suggestive of photodermatitis.

Materials and Methods

Fifty patients (29 males, 21 females) aged between 17 and 75 years, from January 1994 to August 1999 were patch tested with Scandinavian photopatch series, obtained from Chemotechnique Diagnostic AB Sweden which was applied in duplicate over the back. After 48 hours the patches were removed and the right side exposed to 15J/cm2 of UVA, while the other side was covered with opaque thick paper. Both irradiated and non-irradiated sites were evaluated after 48 and 72 hours. 1 + or > reactions at irradiated sites alone, were considered significant for contact photoallergy.

Results

Ten out of 50 patients (7 males, 3 females) showed positive photopatch test reactions. [Table - 1] shows the antigens of the photopatch test series and the number of positive cases.

Discussion

In the Scandinavian multicentric photoptach study musk ambrette and PABA were the leading photosensitisers.[1] In a study from Singapore[2] musk ambrette, chlorpromazine and promethazine were the frequent photoallergens. In our study musk ambrette, chlorpromazine and promethazine showed positive reactions in 4% each, while balsam of peru, triclosan, diphenhydramine, fentichlor and perfume mix in 2% each. In a similar study[3] conducted from 1991 - 1994 in our department, perfume mix was the leading photosensitiser [Table - 1]. Musk ambrette is a synthetic fragrance fixative used in food and cosmetic industries. Chlorpromazine usually causes photocontact dermatitis, but on systemic exposure phototoxic dermatitis may develop. Promethazine can produce phototoxic and photoallergic reactions. Cross sensitivity is known to occur with chlorpromazine and promethazine.[4]

References
1.
Wennersten G, Thune P, Brodthagen H, et al. The Scandinavian multicentric photopatch study. Contact Dermatitis 1984;10:305-309.
[Google Scholar]
2.
Leow YH, Wong WK, NG SK, et al. Two years experience of photopatch testing in Singapore. Contact Dermatitis 1994;31:181-182.
[Google Scholar]
3.
Panja A, Srinivas CR, Shenoi SD, et al. Patch photopatch test at Manipal. Indian J Dermatol Venereal Leprol 1994;60:337-339.
[Google Scholar]
4.
De Leo VA, Harber LC. Contact photodermatitis, In: Contact Dermatitis, Edited by Fisher AA, Lea & Febiger, Philadelphia 1986;454-469.
[Google Scholar]
Show Sections