Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Jun;88(6):438-445.
doi: 10.1111/cod.14297. Epub 2023 Mar 1.

Shedding a light on the importance of photopatch testing: A 12-year experience in a dermatology unit

Carlos Codeço  1 , Pedro Botelho Alves  2 , Ana Carolina Figueiredo  3 , Duarte Flor  3 , Margarida Gonçalo  3   4   5
Affiliations

Shedding a light on the importance of photopatch testing: A 12-year experience in a dermatology unit

Carlos Codeço et al. Contact Dermatitis. 2023 Jun.

Abstract

Background: Photopatch testing has been standardized for diagnosing photoallergic contact dermatitis but is still infrequently used.

Objectives: To characterize photopatch test (PPT) results and their clinical relevance.

Methods: We collected retrospective data from patients photopatch tested in our Dermatology Unit (2010-2021), using the European PPT 'baseline' series, other allergens, and patient's own products, when appropriate.

Results: Out of 223 patients, 75 patients (33.6%) were reactive with 124 positive PPT reactions, considered relevant in 56/223 patients (25.1%) and in 72/124 reactions (58.1%). Most reactions were caused by topical drugs (n = 33; 45.8%), such as ketoprofen or promethazine, and 7 (9.8%) by systemic drugs, such as hydrochlorothiazide and fenofibrate. 'Classical' ultraviolet filters were responsible for six positive PPT reactions whereas there was only three relevant PPT to the 'newer' UV filters. Patients' sunscreens/cosmetics or plant extracts caused 10 positive PPT each. Additional patch test reactions were observed, mostly to Tinosorb® M.

Conclusion: Contrary to the trend in ACD, most positive PPT reactions were caused by topical drugs, outweighing ultraviolet filters and cosmetics. We stress the low reactivity to the 'newer' UV filters included in the PPT series. PPT was occasionally positive in systemic drug photosensitivity, but overall PPT reactivity was low.

Keywords: Tinosorb® M; UV filters; drug photosensitivity; fenofibrate; ketoprofen; photoallergic contact dermatitis; photopatch testing.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

REFERENCES

    1. Gonçalo M. Phototoxic and photoallergic reactions. In: Johansen JD, Mahler V, Lepoittevin J-P, Frosch PJ, eds. Contact Dermatitis. 6th ed. Springer International Publishing; 2021:365-390.
    1. Gonçalo M. Photopatch testing. In: Johansen JD, Mahler V, Lepoittevin J-P, Frosch PJ, eds. Contact Dermatitis. 6th ed. Springer International Publishing; 2021:593-608.
    1. Bruynzeel DP, Ferguson J, Andersen K, et al. Photopatch testing: a consensus methodology for Europe. J Eur Acad Dermatology Venereol. 2004;18(6):679-682.
    1. Gonçalo M, Ferguson J, Bonevalle A, et al. Photopatch testing: recommendations for a European photopatch test baseline series. Contact Dermatitis. 2013;68(4):239-243.
    1. Kerr AC et al. A European multicentre photopatch test study. Br J Dermatol. 2012;166(5):1002-1009.

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources