-
The Nursing Clinics of North America Dec 2020Clinical aromatherapy is an alternative medicine therapy that can be beneficial in the inpatient or outpatient setting for symptom management for pain, nausea, general... (Review)
Review
Clinical aromatherapy is an alternative medicine therapy that can be beneficial in the inpatient or outpatient setting for symptom management for pain, nausea, general well-being, anxiety, depression, stress, and insomnia. It is beneficial for preoperative anxiety, oncology, palliative care, hospice, and end of life. Essential oils can be dangerous and toxic, with some being flammable, causing skin dermatitis, being phototoxic with risk of a chemical burn, or causing oral toxicity or death. The article investigates history, supporting theories, guidelines, plant sources, safety, pathophysiologic responses, and clinical nursing aromatherapy. Recommendations for developing a best practice clinical nursing aromatherapy program are provided.
Topics: Anxiety Disorders; Aromatherapy; Humans; Oils, Volatile; Pain; Pain Management
PubMed: 33131627
DOI: 10.1016/j.cnur.2020.06.015 -
Journal Der Deutschen Dermatologischen... Jan 2021Drug-induced photosensitivity, the development of phototoxic or photoallergic reactions due to pharmaceuticals and subsequent exposure to ultraviolet or visible light,... (Review)
Review
Drug-induced photosensitivity, the development of phototoxic or photoallergic reactions due to pharmaceuticals and subsequent exposure to ultraviolet or visible light, is an adverse effect of growing interest. This is illustrated by the broad spectrum of recent investigations on the topic, ranging from molecular mechanisms and culprit drugs through epidemiological as well as public health related issues to long-term photoaging and potential photocarcinogenic consequences. The present review summarizes the current state of knowledge on the topic while focusing on culprit drugs and long-term effects. In total, 393 different drugs or drug compounds are reported to have a photosensitizing potential, although the level of evidence regarding their ability to induce photosensitive reactions varies markedly among these agents. The pharmaceuticals of interest belong to a wide variety of drug classes. The epidemiological risk associated with the use of photosensitizers is difficult to assess due to under-reporting and geographical differences. However, the widespread use of photosensitizing drugs combined with the potential photocarcinogenic effects reported for several agents has major implications for health and safety and suggests a need for further research on the long-term effects.
Topics: Dermatitis, Photoallergic; Dermatitis, Phototoxic; Drug Eruptions; Humans; Pharmaceutical Preparations; Photosensitivity Disorders; Ultraviolet Rays
PubMed: 33491908
DOI: 10.1111/ddg.14314 -
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 -
Acta Clinica Croatica Dec 2018- Contact skin lesions may be the consequences of contact with various irritants or allergens, or due to other factors (e.g., UV radiation, microbials), intrinsic... (Review)
Review
- Contact skin lesions may be the consequences of contact with various irritants or allergens, or due to other factors (e.g., UV radiation, microbials), intrinsic factors (e.g., in autoimmune responses), or even their combination. There are many substances related to irritant contact dermatitis (CD), causing irritant or toxic effects, e.g., chemical and physical agents, plants, phototoxic agents, airborne irritants, etc. Impaired barrier function (e.g., aberrancies in epidermal pH buffering capabilities) also participates by promoting bacterial biofilms and creating an environment favoring sensitization. Development of allergic CD skin lesions includes complex immune pathways and inflammatory mediators, influenced by both genetic (predominantly filaggrin mutations) and environmental triggers. In the pathogenesis of allergic CD, antimicrobial peptides play a prominent role; they are produced by various skin cells (e.g., keratinocytes, sebocytes) and move to inflamed lesions during an inflammation process. Also, in allergic CD skin lesions, the skin shows different types of immune responses to individual allergens, although clinical manifestations do not depend on the causative allergen type, e.g., nickel stimulates immune activation primarily of the Th1/Th17 and Th22 components. Also important are alarmins, proteases, immunoproteomes, lipids, natural moisturizing factors, tight junctions, smoking, etc. We expect that future perspectives may reveal new pathogenetic factors and scientific data important for the workup and treatment of patients with CD.
Topics: Allergens; Dermatitis, Allergic Contact; Dermatitis, Irritant; Filaggrin Proteins; Humans; Irritants; Skin
PubMed: 31168208
DOI: 10.20471/acc.2018.57.04.13 -
Journal of the European Academy of... Jun 2022Drug-induced photosensitivity is associated with a wide range of anticancer treatments, including conventional chemotherapeutic agents, targeted anticancer therapies,... (Review)
Review
Drug-induced photosensitivity is associated with a wide range of anticancer treatments, including conventional chemotherapeutic agents, targeted anticancer therapies, and immune checkpoint inhibitors. These dermatologic adverse events can have a major impact on the well-being and quality of life of cancer patients, leading to dose modifications and interruption or discontinuation of anticancer treatments in severe cases. However, the heterogeneous nature of the photosensitive reactions induced by these agents, as well as the common concomitant use of other potentially photosensitizing drugs (antibiotics, voriconazole, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, etc.), can make the diagnosis and, therefore the prevention, of these adverse events particularly challenging. The aim of this review is to describe the most characteristic forms of photosensitivity observed in patients being treated with anticancer treatments, including phototoxicity and photoallergy, and other potentially photo-induced manifestations such as UV recall, exaggerated sunburn reactions associated with treatment-related vitiligo, drug-induced cutaneous lupus erythematosus, and UV-induced hyperpigmentation. We also discuss the photosensitive reactions recently reported with new-generation targeted anticancer therapies and immune checkpoint inhibitors and highlight the importance of continued surveillance to identify photosensitizing agents, and of educating patients on the need for preventive UVA/UVB photoprotective measures.
Topics: Dermatitis, Photoallergic; Dermatitis, Phototoxic; Humans; Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors; Photosensitivity Disorders; Quality of Life
PubMed: 35738806
DOI: 10.1111/jdv.18200 -
International Journal of Infectious... Sep 2015
Topics: Adult; Citrus; Dermatitis, Phototoxic; Diagnosis, Differential; Female; Fruit and Vegetable Juices; Humans
PubMed: 26166698
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijid.2015.07.004 -
Frontiers in Allergy 2022Drug-induced photosensitivity (DIP) is a common cutaneous adverse drug reaction, resulting from the interaction of ultraviolet radiations, mostly ultraviolet A, with... (Review)
Review
Drug-induced photosensitivity (DIP) is a common cutaneous adverse drug reaction, resulting from the interaction of ultraviolet radiations, mostly ultraviolet A, with drugs. DIP includes phototoxicity and photoallergy. A phototoxic reaction is obtained when topical and systemic drugs or their metabolites absorb light inducing a direct cellular damage, while a photoallergic reaction takes place when the interaction between drugs and ultraviolet radiations causes an immune cutaneous response. Clinically, phototoxicity is immediate and appears as an exaggerated sunburn, whereas photoallergy is a delayed eczematous reaction. DIP may show several clinical subtypes. In this mini-review we report the pathogenetic mechanisms and causative drugs of DIP. We offer a detailed description of DIP clinical features in its classical and unusual subtypes, such as hyperpigmentation/dyschromia, pseudoporphyria, photo-onycolysis, eruptive teleangiectasia, pellagra-like reaction, lichenoid reaction, photodistributed erythema multiforme and subacute/chronic cutaneous lupus erythematosus. We described how physicians may early recognize and manage DIP, including diagnostic tests to rule out similar conditions. We made suggestions on how to improve sun exposure behaviors of patients at risk of DIP by means of an aware use of sunscreens, protective clothing and recent technologic tools. We highlighted the lack of sun safety programs addressed to patients at risk of DIP, who need a formal education about their condition.
PubMed: 36238932
DOI: 10.3389/falgy.2022.876695 -
Frontiers in Allergy 2023Photosensitive dermatoses are seen in 5% of HIV-infected persons. These include drug- and chemical-induced photoallergic and phototoxic reactions, chronic actinic... (Review)
Review
Photosensitive dermatoses are seen in 5% of HIV-infected persons. These include drug- and chemical-induced photoallergic and phototoxic reactions, chronic actinic dermatitis of HIV, photo lichenoid drug eruptions, and porphyria. Data on photodermatitis in HIV are limited to case reports and series. The pathogenesis is not completely understood and includes a th2 phenotype in HIV which results in impaired barrier function and resultant allergen sensitisation as well as immune dysregulation. The objective of this manuscript is to review the literature on the clinical phenotype, pathogenesis, role of photo and patch testing, outcomes, and treatment of photodermatitis in HIV in an African population.
PubMed: 37216149
DOI: 10.3389/falgy.2023.1159387