|Year : 1994 | Volume
| Issue : 6 | Page : 337-339
Patch photopatch test at Manipal
Arindrajit Panja, CR Srinivas, SD Shenoy, Balachan
Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None
Patch and photopatch testing was performed on 55 patients with history of photosensitivity using Scandanavian photo patch test antigens obtained from Chemotechnique Diagnostics AB Sweden.
The commonest reactions were seen to perfume mix 4 (21.0%), PABA 3 (15.78%), promethazine hydrochloride 3 (15.78%), chlorpromazine hydrochloride 3 (15.78%), balsam of peru 2 (10.52%), usnic acid, hexachlorophane, musk ambrette and 6 methyl coumarin showed 1 positive reaction each (5.26%) suggesting either phototoxicity or photo sensitization. Patch and photo patch test positive reaction suggesting allergic sensitisation was seen to balsam of peru 3 (23.0%) perfume mix 3 (23.0%) promethazine hydrochloride 2 (15.3%) and PABA, 6 methyl coumarin, tribromosalicylanilide, atranorin and wood mix showed positive reaction in one case each (7.69%).
We conclude that photoxic or photo allergic reaction is a problem in India and patch photo patch test should be performed in all cases of idiopathic light eruptions to rule out photo sensitisation and in cases where photo sensitivity of exogenous origin is suspected.
Keywords: Patch testing, Photo patch testing, Perfume mix, PABA, Promethazine,Hydrochloride, Chlorpromazine hydrochloride, Balsam of Peru, Usnic acid, Hexachlorophane, Musk ambrette, 6 methyl coumarin.
|How to cite this article:|
Panja A, Srinivas C R, Shenoy S D, Balachan. Patch photopatch test at Manipal. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol 1994;60:337-9
|How to cite this URL:|
Panja A, Srinivas C R, Shenoy S D, Balachan. Patch photopatch test at Manipal. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol [serial online] 1994 [cited 2020 Apr 7];60:337-9. Available from: http://www.ijdvl.com/text.asp?1994/60/6/337/4097
| Introduction|| |
Patch testing with numerous antigens to detect allergic sensitivity is performed at many places in India. However no attempt has been made to detect the photo sensitisers among the Indian patients. We carried out this study to detect the common exogenous photo sensitisers on patients who presented with clinical features suggestive of idiopathic photodermatoses or photo sensitivity due to exogenous photosensitisers.
| Materials and Methods|| |
Photo patch testing was performed on 55 patients out of which 35 were males and 20 females. Antigens of the Scandanavian photo patch test series obtained from chemotechnique diagnostics AB Sweden was applied in duplicate over the back of the patients using Vander Bend chambers. After 24 hours the patches were removed and after half an hour the back was examined for positive reaction. One side was then exposed to 15 Joules/cm  of UVA while the other site was covered with a black carbon paper.
Both the sites were examined at 72 and 96 hours and were interpreted as shown in [Table - 1].
| Results|| |
[Table - 2] shows the antigens of the photo patch test series and positive photo patch along with positive results to both patch and photo patch testing.
| Comments|| |
Photosensitive dermatosis are seen all over the world. But photosensitive reactions is commonly reported among the Caucasians.  Most of the external photo sensitisers have the action spectrum in the long wave UV light.  No study has been carried out amongst the Indians to detect the photo allergic or photo toxic reactions to external chemicals. In our study most frequent positive reactions were seen to perfume mix 4 (21.0%), PABA 3 (15.78%), chlorpromazine hydrochloride 3 (15.78%), promethazine hydrochloride 3 (15.78%), balsam of Peru 2 (10.52%) and others like usnic acid, hexachlorophane, musk ambrette and 6 methyl coumarin had 1 positive reaction to each (5.26%).
The common sources of photosensitisers in India are shown in [Table - 3].
The Scandanavian multicentre photo patch study showed maximum positivity to musk ambrette and PABA.  The 6 year study in New York had maximum positivity to 6 methyl coumarin, PABA and musk ambrette.  The German, Australian and Swiss photo patch test group which was performed in 45 dermatologic clinics had maximum positivity to tiaprofenic acid, caprofen, promethazine hydrochloride and hexachlorophane. 
We believe that in addition to these sensitisers there are numerous other sensitisers in our sorrounding either from the plant sources or from chemicals which are yet unreported. We intend to take up studies to detect some of these sensitisers.
| References|| |
|1.||Cronin E. Photosensitisers. In : Contact Dermatitis, Edinburgh : Churchill Livingstone, 1980; 414-560. |
|2.||Wennersten G, Thune P, Brodthagen H, Jansen C, Rystedt I. The Scandanavin multicentre photo patch study. Contact Dermatitis 1984; 10 : 305-9. [PUBMED] |
|3.||De Leo Va, Suarez SM, Maso MJ. Photo allergic contact dermatitis. Results of photo patch testing in New York. Arch Dermatol 1992; 128 : 1513-18. |
|4.||Holzle E, Neuman N, Hausen B, et al. Photo patch testing the 5-year experience of the German, Australian and Swiss photo patch test group. J Am Acad Dermatol 1991 ; 25 59-68. |
[Table - 1], [Table - 2], [Table - 3]
|This article has been cited by|
||Five years experience of photopatch testing in 50 patients
| ||Kanchan, P., Shenoi, S., Balachandran, C. |
| ||Indian Journal of Dermatology, Venereology and Leprology. 2002; 68(2): 86-87 |