-
Current Problems in Dermatology 2021Adverse reactions to sunscreens are uncommon in relation to their widespread use [Loden et al. Br J Dermatol. 2011;165(2):255-62; Jansen et al. J Am Acad Dermatol.... (Review)
Review
Adverse reactions to sunscreens are uncommon in relation to their widespread use [Loden et al. Br J Dermatol. 2011;165(2):255-62; Jansen et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2013;69(6):867 e861-814; quiz 881-862] and can be related to both active and inactive ingredients in sunscreen products [DiNardo et al. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2018;17(1):15-19; Barrientos et al. Contact Dermatitis. 2019;81(2):151-52]. Pathogenetically, the main cutaneous adverse reaction patterns to sunscreens can be divided into allergic and irritant contact dermatitis, phototoxic and photoallergic contact dermatitis, contact urticaria, and, in solitary cases, anaphylactic reactions [Lautenschlager et al. Lancet. 2007;370(9586):528-37]. A summary is provided in Table
1 . Nearly all adverse effects due to active sunscreen ingredients reported to date are related to the organic UV filters, which are sometimes also referred to as "chemical UV filters." This imbalance is attributable to the lipophilic character and small molecular size of the organic UV filters that allow skin penetration, which is the basic requirement to initiate the sensitization [Stiefel et al. Int J Cosmet Sci. 2015;37(1):2-30]. In contrast, cutaneous adverse reactions to inorganic UV filters, initially termed "physical UV filters" owing to their firstly known "physical" mechanism of action through reflection and scattering [Stiefel et al. Int J Cosmet Sci. 2015;37(1):2-30], are only reported by case reports. Neither zinc oxide nor titanium dioxide possesses relevant skin-irritating properties or sensitization potential [Lau-tenschlager et al. Lancet. 2007;370(9586):528-37]. Adverse reactions to UV filters currently approved in the European Union as listed in the Annex VI (updated November 7, 2019) are summarized in Table2 .Topics: Dermatitis, Allergic Contact; Dermatitis, Irritant; European Union; Humans; Pharmaceutical Vehicles; Skin; Skin Neoplasms; Sunscreening Agents; Titanium; Ultraviolet Rays; Zinc Oxide
PubMed: 34698020
DOI: 10.1159/000517634 -
Advances in Experimental Medicine and... 2022Photodermatosis is an abnormal skin inflammatory reaction to light. The major classifications of photodermatoses are idiopathic photodermatoses, photodermatoses due to...
Photodermatosis is an abnormal skin inflammatory reaction to light. The major classifications of photodermatoses are idiopathic photodermatoses, photodermatoses due to exogenous or endogenous agents, photo-exacerbated dermatoses, and photosensitive genodermatoses. In this chapter, we focus on idiopathic photodermatoses and drug-related photodermatoses and emphasize on the epidemiology and immunogenetic backgrounds. Idiopathic photodermatoses, a spectrum of diseases with abnormal responses to ultraviolet radiation (UVR), include polymorphous light eruption, actinic prurigo, hydroa vacciniforme, chronic actinic dermatitis, and solar urticaria. Young people are more susceptible to most idiopathic photodermatoses except for chronic actinic dermatitis. Interestingly, idiopathic photodermatoses exhibit different characteristics between Caucasians and Asians. For example, the average age of Asian actinic prurigo patients is older than that of Caucasians in which genetic backgrounds or Fitzpatrick skin type might play a role. Drug-induced photodermatoses can be classified into phototoxic and photoallergic drug reactions. Certain drug-induced photodermatoses may mimic other dermatoses. For instance, drug-induced lupus erythematosus (LE) should be considered if an old man is diagnosed with LE but had a poor response to standard treatments.
Topics: Adolescent; Humans; Immunogenetics; Male; Photosensitivity Disorders; Ultraviolet Rays
PubMed: 35286703
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-92616-8_14 -
Yakugaku Zasshi : Journal of the... 2021Phototoxicity is a toxic response elicited by topically applied or systemically administered photoreactive chemicals after exposure to light and can be broadly... (Review)
Review
Phototoxicity is a toxic response elicited by topically applied or systemically administered photoreactive chemicals after exposure to light and can be broadly categorized into photoirritation, photoallergy, photogenotoxicity, and photocarcinogenicity. The need in the 21st century for accurate evaluation of photosafety has led to the publication of a number of guidelines from government agencies in Europe and the U.S.A. as well as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). In this review, we first discuss the mechanisms of phototoxicity and how they can be evaluated. We then discuss the state of the art and challenges now faced in photosafety evaluation of pharmaceuticals and cosmetics. Additionally, we describe the latest developments in OECD test guidelines (TG) for assessing photosafety, including revisions to the in vitro 3T3 neutral red uptake (NRU) phototoxicity test (TG 432) and the newly adopted reactive oxigen species (ROS) assay (TG 495). We will emphasize the importance of selecting the most appropriate means of evaluation with reference to the latest guidelines and other legal criteria for conducting photosafety evaluation.
Topics: 3T3 Cells; Animals; Cells, Cultured; Dermatitis, Phototoxic; Humans; Light; Mice; Neutral Red; Reactive Oxygen Species; Safety; Toxicity Tests
PubMed: 33390438
DOI: 10.1248/yakushi.20-00148 -
International Journal of Dermatology Dec 2023
Topics: Humans; Dermatitis, Phototoxic; Dronedarone; Anti-Arrhythmia Agents
PubMed: 37700581
DOI: 10.1111/ijd.16845 -
Photodermatology, Photoimmunology &... May 2020The novel group of immunological agents used for solid tumors has importantly improved the quality of life and the survival rate of oncologic patients. Compared to... (Review)
Review
The novel group of immunological agents used for solid tumors has importantly improved the quality of life and the survival rate of oncologic patients. Compared to conventional chemotherapy agents, they are more effective and less toxic. However, adverse cutaneous effects are commonly observed, and in some cases, they may induce treatment discontinuation, with heavy impact on patient prognosis. Among these, photosensitive reactions, either phototoxic or photoallergic, are increasing. Much remains to be clarified on the understanding of their prevention, diagnosis, and management. We have reviewed the literature about photosensitive reactions occurring during oncologic immunotherapies. Early dermatological diagnosis and adequate management, with oncologist's cooperation, is fundamental.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents, Immunological; Humans; Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors; Photosensitivity Disorders; Protein Kinase Inhibitors
PubMed: 31978248
DOI: 10.1111/phpp.12533 -
Food and Chemical Toxicology : An... Mar 2021The existing information supports the use of these materials as described in this safety assessment. The 167 materials identified in this assessment were evaluated for... (Review)
Review
The existing information supports the use of these materials as described in this safety assessment. The 167 materials identified in this assessment were evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, and environmental safety. Target data, read-across analogs and TTC show that these materials are not expected to be genotoxic. The repeated dose, reproductive, and local respiratory toxicity endpoints were evaluated using the TTC for their respective Cramer Classes (see Fig. 1 below) and the exposure to these materials is below the TTC. The skin sensitization endpoint was completed using the DST for non-reactive and reactive materials (900 μg/cm and 64 μg/cm, respectively); exposures are below the DST. The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoints were evaluated based on UV spectra; these materials are not expected to be phototoxic/photoallergenic. The environmental endpoints were evaluated; the materials were found not to be PBT as per the IFRA Environmental Standards, and their risk quotients, based on their current volume of use in Europe and North America (i.e., PEC/PNEC), are <1.
Topics: Animals; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Humans; Odorants; Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship; Reproduction; Risk Assessment; Toxicity Tests
PubMed: 33577945
DOI: 10.1016/j.fct.2021.111981 -
Molecular Genetics and Metabolism Nov 2019Congenital erythropoietic porphyria (CEP) is a rare autosomal recessive disorder characterized by photosensitivity and by hematologic abnormalities in affected... (Review)
Review
Congenital erythropoietic porphyria (CEP) is a rare autosomal recessive disorder characterized by photosensitivity and by hematologic abnormalities in affected individuals. CEP is caused by mutations in the uroporphyrinogen synthase (UROS) gene. In three reported cases, CEP has been associated with a specific X-linked GATA1 mutation. Disease-causing mutations in either gene result in absent or markedly reduced UROS enzymatic activity. This in turn leads to the accumulation of the non-physiologic and photoreactive porphyrinogens, uroporphyrinogen I and coproporphyrinogen I, which damage erythrocytes and elicit a phototoxic reaction upon light exposure. The clinical spectrum of CEP depends on the level of residual UROS activity, which is determined by the underlying pathogenic loss-of-function UROS mutations. Disease severity ranges from non-immune hydrops fetalis in utero to late-onset disease with only mild cutaneous involvement. The clinical characteristics of CEP include exquisite photosensitivity to visible light resulting in bullous vesicular lesions which, when infected lead to progressive photomutilation of sun-exposed areas such as the face and hands. In addition, patients have erythrodontia (brownish discoloration of teeth) and can develop corneal scarring. Chronic transfusion-dependent hemolytic anemia is common and leads to bone marrow hyperplasia, which further increases porphyrin production. Management of CEP consists of strict avoidance of exposure to visible light with sun-protective clothing, sunglasses, and car and home window filters. Adequate care of ruptured vesicles and use of topical antibiotics is indicated to prevent superinfections and osteolysis. In patients with symptomatic hemolytic anemia, frequent erythrocyte cell transfusions may be necessary to suppress hematopoiesis and decrease marrow production of the phototoxic porphyrins. In severe transfection-dependent cases, bone marrow or hematopoietic stem cell transplantation has been performed, which is curative. Therapeutic approaches including gene therapy, proteasome inhibition, and pharmacologic chaperones are under investigation.
Topics: Animals; Biosynthetic Pathways; GATA1 Transcription Factor; Genetic Diseases, Inborn; Genetic Therapy; Heme; Humans; Mice; Mutation; Porphyria, Erythropoietic
PubMed: 30685241
DOI: 10.1016/j.ymgme.2018.12.008 -
International Journal of Dermatology May 2021
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Dermatitis, Phototoxic; Humans; Pyridones
PubMed: 33615459
DOI: 10.1111/ijd.15361 -
Micromachines Jul 2019For several decades optical tweezers have proven to be an invaluable tool in the study and analysis of myriad biological responses and applications. However, as with... (Review)
Review
For several decades optical tweezers have proven to be an invaluable tool in the study and analysis of myriad biological responses and applications. However, as with every tool, they can have undesirable or damaging effects upon the very sample they are helping to study. In this review the main negative effects of optical tweezers upon biostructures and living systems will be presented. There are three main areas on which the review will focus: linear optical excitation within the tweezers, non-linear photonic effects, and thermal load upon the sampled volume. Additional information is provided on negative mechanical effects of optical traps on biological structures. Strategies to avoid or, at least, minimize these negative effects will be introduced. Finally, all these effects, undesirable for the most, can have positive applications under the right conditions. Some hints in this direction will also be discussed.
PubMed: 31370251
DOI: 10.3390/mi10080507 -
Critical Reviews in Toxicology Sep 2020Although sunlight provides several benefits, ultraviolet (UV) radiation plays an important role in the development of various skin damages such as erythema, photoaging,... (Review)
Review
Although sunlight provides several benefits, ultraviolet (UV) radiation plays an important role in the development of various skin damages such as erythema, photoaging, and photocarcinogenesis. Despite cells having endogenous defense systems, damaged DNA may not be efficiently repaired at chronic exposure. In this sense, it is necessary to use artificial defense strategies such as sunscreen formulations. UV filters should scatter, reflect, or absorb solar UV radiation in order to prevent direct or indirect DNA lesions. However, the safety of UV filters is a matter of concern due to several controversies reported in literature, such as endocrine alterations, allergies, increased oxidative stress, phototoxic events, among others. Despite these controversies, the way in which sunscreens are tested is essential to ensure safety. Sunscreen regulation includes mandatory test for phototoxicity, but photogenotoxicity testing is not recommended as a part of the standard photosafety testing program. Although available photobiological tests are still the first approach to assess photosafety, they are limited. Some existing tests do not always provide reliable results, mainly due to limitations regarding the nature of the assessed phototoxic effect, cell UV sensitivity, and the irradiation protocols. These aspects bring queries regarding the safety of sunscreen wide use and suggest the demand for the development of robust and efficient screening tests to overcome the existing limitations. In this way, has stood out as a promising model to fill the gaps in photobiology and to complete the mandatory tests enabling a more extensive and robust photosafety assessment.
Topics: DNA Damage; Humans; Oxidative Stress; Skin; Skin Neoplasms; Sunlight; Sunscreening Agents; Ultraviolet Rays
PubMed: 33064037
DOI: 10.1080/10408444.2020.1826899