-
Ophthalmic & Physiological Optics : the... Nov 2017Blue-blocking (BB) spectacle lenses, which attenuate short-wavelength light, are being marketed to alleviate eyestrain and discomfort when using digital devices, improve... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Blue-blocking (BB) spectacle lenses, which attenuate short-wavelength light, are being marketed to alleviate eyestrain and discomfort when using digital devices, improve sleep quality and potentially confer protection from retinal phototoxicity. The aim of this review was to investigate the relative benefits and potential harms of these lenses.
METHODS
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), recruiting adults from the general population, which investigated the effect of BB spectacle lenses on visual performance, symptoms of eyestrain or eye fatigue, changes to macular integrity and subjective sleep quality. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and clinical trial registers, until 30 April 2017. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool.
RESULTS
Three studies (with 136 participants) met our inclusion criteria; these had limitations in study design and/or implementation. One study compared the effect of BB lenses with clear lenses on contrast sensitivity (CS) and colour vision (CV) using a pseudo-RCT crossover design; there was no observed difference between lens types (log CS; Mean Difference (MD) = -0.01 [-0.03, 0.01], CV total error score on 100-hue; MD = 1.30 [-7.84, 10.44]). Another study measured critical fusion frequency (CFF), as a proxy for eye fatigue, on wearers of low and high BB lenses, pre- and post- a two-hour computer task. There was no observed difference between low BB and standard lens groups, but there was a less negative change in CFF between the high and low BB groups (MD = 1.81 [0.57, 3.05]). Both studies compared eyestrain symptoms with Likert scales. There was no evidence of inter-group differences for either low BB (MD = 0.00 [-0.22, 0.22]) or high BB lenses (MD = -0.05 [-0.31, 0.21]), nor evidence of a difference in the proportion of participants showing an improvement in symptoms of eyestrain or eye fatigue. One study reported a small improvement in sleep quality in people with self-reported insomnia after wearing high compared to low-BB lenses (MD = 0.80 [0.17, 1.43]) using a 10-point Likert scale. A study involving normal participants found no observed difference in sleep quality. We found no studies investigating effects on macular structure or function.
CONCLUSIONS
We find a lack of high quality evidence to support using BB spectacle lenses for the general population to improve visual performance or sleep quality, alleviate eye fatigue or conserve macular health.
Topics: Circadian Rhythm; Contrast Sensitivity; Eye Pain; Eyeglasses; Humans; Light; Macula Lutea; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sleep; Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders; Visual Acuity
PubMed: 29044670
DOI: 10.1111/opo.12406 -
Toxicology and Industrial Health Jul 2022Today, tattooing has become very popular among people all over the world. Tattooists, with the help of tiny needles, place tattoo ink inside the skin surface and...
Tattoo inks are toxicological risks to human health: A systematic review of their ingredients, fate inside skin, toxicity due to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, primary aromatic amines, metals, and overview of regulatory frameworks.
Today, tattooing has become very popular among people all over the world. Tattooists, with the help of tiny needles, place tattoo ink inside the skin surface and unintentionally introduce a large number of unknown ingredients. These ingredients include polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), heavy metals, and primary aromatic amines (PAAs), which are either unintentionally introduced along with the ink or produced inside the skin by different types of processes for example cleavage, metabolism and photodecomposition. These could pose toxicological risks to human health, if present beyond permissible limits. PAH such as Benzo(a)pyrene is present in carbon black ink. PAAs could be formed inside the skin as a result of reductive cleavage of organic azo dyes. They are reported to be highly carcinogenic by environmental protection agencies. Heavy metals, namely, cadmium, lead, mercury, antimony, beryllium, and arsenic are responsible for cancer, neurodegenerative diseases, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, lungs, kidneys, liver, endocrine, and bone diseases. Mercury, cobalt sulphate, other soluble cobalt salts, and carbon black are in Group 2B, which means they may cause cancer in humans. Cadmium and compounds of cadmium, on the other hand, are in Group 1 (carcinogenic to humans). The present article addresses the various ingredients of tattoo inks, their metabolic fate inside human skin and unintentionally added impurities that could pose toxicological risk to human health. Public awareness and regulations that are warranted to be implemented globally for improving the safety of tattooing.
Topics: Amines; Cadmium; Carcinogens; Humans; Ink; Mercury; Metals; Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons; Soot; Tattooing
PubMed: 35592919
DOI: 10.1177/07482337221100870 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2021Atopic eczema (AE), also known as atopic dermatitis, is a chronic inflammatory skin condition that causes significant burden. Phototherapy is sometimes used to treat AE... (Review)
Review
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.
Topics: Adult; Child; Dermatitis, Atopic; Eczema; Female; Humans; Male; Phototherapy; Quality of Life; Ultraviolet Therapy
PubMed: 34709669
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013870.pub2 -
Seminars in Ophthalmology Oct 2021: Blue blocking (BB) lenses, including spectacles and intraocular lenses, work by attenuating short-wavelength light. BB glasses are being marketed with the aim to...
: Blue blocking (BB) lenses, including spectacles and intraocular lenses, work by attenuating short-wavelength light. BB glasses are being marketed with the aim to reduce eye fatigue symptoms when using digital devices, improve sleep quality and potentially confer protection from retinal phototoxicity. BB intraocular lenses following cataract surgery may be implanted because they are thought to prevent age-related macular degeneration (AMD) progression.: The present study is a systematic review aiming to analyze BB lenses clinical efficacy in preventing blue light-related ocular disorders, including AMD progression, eye fatigue, and their impact on sleep quality. We searched Medline, PubMed, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library until May 2020.:Although several studies have been performed investigating BB lenses, clinical efficacy for preventing or attenuating the above-mentioned ocular disorders is often theorical or based on laboratory or animal experiments. To date, there is a lack of consistent evidence for a larger-sclale introduction of BB lenses in the routine clinical practice.
Topics: Animals; Cataract Extraction; Humans; Lens, Crystalline; Lenses, Intraocular; Light; Macular Degeneration
PubMed: 33734926
DOI: 10.1080/08820538.2021.1900283 -
Journal of the American Academy of... Dec 2018Phototoxicity has been attributed to numerous oral drugs over the past 60 years.
BACKGROUND
Phototoxicity has been attributed to numerous oral drugs over the past 60 years.
OBJECTIVE
Determine the quality of evidence supporting suspected phototoxicity from oral drugs.
METHODS
The MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched for all studies that contain original data for drug-induced phototoxicity and were published between May 1959 and December 2016. Study quality was assessed by using a modified Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation scale.
RESULTS
The review included 240 eligible studies with a total of 2466 subjects. There were 1134 cases of suspected phototoxicity associated with 129 drugs. Most associations were supported by either very low-quality or low-quality evidence (89.1% of the studies). Medications supported by stronger evidence were vemurafenib, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and antibiotics, specifically, fluoroquinolones and tetracyclines. The most frequently reported drugs were vemurafenib, voriconazole, doxycycline, hydrochlorothiazide, amiodarone, and chlorpromazine. Photobiologic evaluation was performed in only 56 studies (23.3%), whereas challenge-rechallenge was done in 10% of cases.
LIMITATIONS
Only English-language publications were reviewed. Cases of phototoxicity that had been incorrectly categorized as photoallergy would not have been included.
CONCLUSIONS
Most purported associations between oral drugs and phototoxicity are not supported by high-quality evidence. Despite the variable quality of data, clinicians should be aware of the possible consequences of long-term use of culprit drugs.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Dermatitis, Phototoxic; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Vemurafenib
PubMed: 30003982
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2018.06.061 -
Journal of Agricultural and Food... Jun 2015Buckwheat contains many healthy nutrients, and its consumption is therefore increasing. Buckwheat also contains fluorescent phototoxic fagopyrins. A systematic review of... (Review)
Review
Buckwheat contains many healthy nutrients, and its consumption is therefore increasing. Buckwheat also contains fluorescent phototoxic fagopyrins. A systematic review of fagopyrins and the phototoxicity of buckwheat found that reliable quantitative data on fagopyrin toxicity are not yet available. Generally, buckwheat seeds, flour, and teas are safe in normal amounts. Diets extensively composed of buckwheat sprouts, herbs, and particularly flowers or of fagopyrin-rich buckwheat extracts may cause fagopyrism. A reference standard is needed, as it would enable the accurate evaluation of fagopyrin content in buckwheat products and would allow proper testing of their as yet unknown physical, chemical, and biological characteristics.
Topics: Fagopyrum; Flour; Quinones; Seeds
PubMed: 26024291
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jafc.5b01163 -
Skin Pharmacology and Physiology 2017One of the most important dermatologic side effects of doxycycline is photosensitivity. As doxycycline is important for malaria prophylaxis and malaria is mainly spread... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
One of the most important dermatologic side effects of doxycycline is photosensitivity. As doxycycline is important for malaria prophylaxis and malaria is mainly spread in countries with high sun radiation, special attention should be paid to this adverse effect. While there are many publications on the phototoxicity of tetracyclines in general, only a few exist focusing on doxycycline. The objective of this systematic review was to summarize all available reports on clinical manifestations, influencing factors like UV dose or dose of medication, and the possibilities of prevention by sun protection.
METHODS
This review is based on a systematic search in PubMed for articles in English and German and a manual search between 1990 and 2015.
RESULTS
The number of publications is low. Clinical symptoms vary from light sunburn-like sensation (burning, erythema) to large-area photodermatitis. Also, onycholysis is possible. The triggering UV spectrum seems to consist mainly of UVA1 (340-400 nm), so UV-protective products should be used that cover this range. Travelers to tropical countries taking doxycycline for malaria prophylaxis need thorough medical counseling to avoid possibly severe phototoxic reactions.
CONCLUSION
Evidence base must be improved for giving advice on appropriate prevention measures to travelers taking doxycycline and having a risk of significant sun exposure.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Doxycycline; Humans; Malaria; Onycholysis; Photosensitivity Disorders; Sunlight; Ultraviolet Rays
PubMed: 28291967
DOI: 10.1159/000458761 -
Current Drug Safety 2014In the last decade, several third and fourth generation fluoroquinolones (FQs) have been approved for clinical use. These new agents exhibit a more potent and... (Review)
Review
In the last decade, several third and fourth generation fluoroquinolones (FQs) have been approved for clinical use. These new agents exhibit a more potent and broader-spectrum antibacterial activity and improved pharmacokinetic properties in comparison to the earlier FQs. Although new FQs are generally safe and well tolerated, moderate-to-severe toxicity events have been reported for some of them, leading to their restriction, suspension or even withdrawal from the market. The most common FQ-related adverse effects (AEs) are usually mild and involve the gastrointestinal tract (e.g. nausea and diarrhea) and the central nervous system (e.g. headache and dizziness). Uncommon, but severe AEs (e.g. arthropathy, QTc interval prolongation, dysglycaemia and phototoxicity) and idiosyncratic reactions (e.g. hepatitis and hemolytic anemia) have also been reported and will be discussed throughout this paper. The evidence currently available suggests that AEs can be inherent to the FQ class or can be associated with a particular chemical moiety of the molecular structure of each FQ, thus varying in frequency, severity and nature. The main goal of this review is to provide a systematic evaluation of safety and tolerability data of the newer FQs with emphasis on those currently marketed.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Chemical and Drug Induced Liver Injury; Dermatitis, Phototoxic; Electrocardiography; Eye Diseases; Fluoroquinolones; Gastrointestinal Tract; Humans; Neurotoxicity Syndromes; Skin Diseases; Structure-Activity Relationship
PubMed: 24410307
DOI: 10.2174/1574886308666140106154754 -
Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational... 2021Vitiligo is disfiguring and devastating condition that can humans feel stigmatic and devalued. Melasma is a general condition of hyperpigmentation particularly involving... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Vitiligo is disfiguring and devastating condition that can humans feel stigmatic and devalued. Melasma is a general condition of hyperpigmentation particularly involving the face. The pigmentation disorders of vitiligo (hypopigmentation or de-pigmentation) and melasma (Hypermelanosis) are common among the world's population (around 1% for vitiligo).
OBJECTIVE
The identification of medicinal plants used in the treatment of vitiligo and hypermelanosis. A systematic literature review on harms associated with the medicinal plants used in the treatment of vitiligo and hypermelanosis. To review and summarize information on reported adverse drug reactions (ADRs) associated with these medicinal plants contained in (where access is available) national and global individual case safety report databases.
METHODS
A systematic review of the literature with special reference to all types of clinical trial and case reports using biomedical databases including Medline, EMBASE, Scopus, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts and so forth to identify medicinal plants alone or as an adjuvant with other treatments and their safety/tolerability in the treatment of vitiligo and Hypermelanosis. Other sources of this search were medicinal plants text books, pharmacopoeias and authentic websites discussing possible treatments for vitiligo/hypermelanosis. It also included databases such as VigiAccess containing data from spontaneous reporting schemes for ADRs.
RESULTS
A total of 55 articles (47 clinical trials and 8 case reports) met the inclusion criteria. Some trials did not reported safety information, some did report, but not very well. Reports of blistering, erythema, acute hepatitis and mutagenesis with . Adverse effects of erythema (mild to severe), phototoxic reactions, mild raise in liver transaminases, gastrointestinal disturbances, burns, itching, scaling, depigmented macules, pruritis, and giddiness with the use of psoralens. Khellin-related erythema, perilesional hyperpigmentation, gastrointestinal disturbances, mild raise in liver transaminases and orthostatic complaints. Infrequent side effects with Ginkgo biloba. Lower grade of erythema and edema reported with the use of
CONCLUSION
Primarily the retrieved clinical studies were efficacy oriented and safety parameters were secondary in priority whilst the general protocol of clinical trials requires the screening of drugs/medicinal plants on the basis of safety studies before testing the clinical aspects of efficacy. Thereby it is recommended that efficacy studies may be followed once the safety has been established for a particular medicinal plant in treating vitiligo and hypermelanosis.
PubMed: 33790609
DOI: 10.2147/CCID.S298342 -
Environmental Pollution (Barking, Essex... Jan 2024As aluminum nanoparticles (Al-NPs) are widely used in our daily life and various industries, Al-NPs has been becoming an emerging pollution in the environment. The... (Review)
Review
As aluminum nanoparticles (Al-NPs) are widely used in our daily life and various industries, Al-NPs has been becoming an emerging pollution in the environment. The impact of this NP has been attracting more and more attention from the scientific communities. In this review, we systematically summarized the interactions, uptake, and transport of Al-NPs in the plant system. Al-NPs can enter plants through different pathways and accumulate in various tissues, leading to alter plant growth and development. Al-NPs also affected root, shoot, and leaf characteristics as well as changing nutrient uptake and distribution and inducing oxidative stress via excess reactive radical generation, thereby impairing plant defense systems. Additionally, Al-NPs altered gene expression, which involved in various signaling pathways and metabolic processes in plants, that further altered plants susceptible or tolerant to stressors. The review also emphasized the effects of Al-NP size, surface charge, concentration, and exposure duration on plant growth and development. In the future, more research should be focused on mechanisms underlying Al-NPs phytotoxicity and potential risk to humans and off-target species.
Topics: Humans; Aluminum; Plant Development; Artesunate; Biological Transport; Nanoparticles
PubMed: 37931678
DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2023.122875