Search

Background Photosensitivity disorders involve an abnormal skin reaction to sunlight exposure and affect a substantial percentage of the population. No previous studies have directly compared lifestyle attributes between photosensitive and healthy individuals. Objectives To assess the impact of photosensitivity on time spent outdoors in the U.K., holiday behaviour, use of sunscreens and vitamin D supplements, and employment status. Methods Questionnaires were completed by ambulant photosensitive and healthy adults aged 18-60 years residing in Greater Manchester. Results Forty-five adults with moderate-severe photosensitivity and 124 healthy adults completed the questionnaire. This revealed that photosensitive subjects spent significantly less time outdoors in the U.K. on both summer weekdays ( P < 0·01) and summer weekends ( P < 0·0001) than healthy subjects, took fewer holidays per year ( P < 0·05), and spent less time outdoors on a sunny holiday ( P < 0·0001). They wore clothing that covered a wider skin area ( P < 0·0001), and use of sunscreen was greater (both frequency of application and area covered) in the photosensitive group outside of holiday time ( P < 0·0001), but not when on a sunny holiday, as healthy people increased their sunscreen use at this time. Despite the reduced sun exposure, photosensitive subjects were no more likely to take vitamin D supplements than healthy subjects were; they also exhibited a significantly higher rate of unemployment ( P < 0·05). Conclusions Photosensitivity disorders negatively influence lifestyle including employment status; more attention is required to the socioeconomic impact of these conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Photoallergic contact dermatitis can be difficult to diagnose if not appropriately investigated. Currently, the most common U.K. photoallergens appear to be sunscreen chemicals. The investigation of choice is photopatch testing (PPT), which is probably underused. In part, this is due to differences in methodology and results interpretation. Objectives To conduct PPT using a group of sunscreen chemicals, defined indications and a standardized methodology including interpretation and relevance of reactions in patients attending for investigation at 17 centres across the U.K., Ireland and the Netherlands. Methods Patients ( n = 1155) who fulfilled the inclusion criteria were investigated with PPT using sunscreen chemicals in addition to suspected topical products. Readings were taken at 24, 48 and 72 h following standardized ultraviolet A irradiation (5 J cm−2). The clinical relevance of any reaction was recorded. Results Of the 1155, 130 had allergic reactions (11·3%). Of these, 51 had photoallergy (PA) (4·4%), 64 had contact allergy (CA) (5·5%), and 15 patients had combined PA and CA (1·3%). Multiple PA was seen in some. The most common photoallergen was benzophenone-3 (27 reactions; 21%). Most reactions (60%) were clinically relevant. The most common indication for testing in patients found to have PA was a history of reacting to a sunscreen (41%). The other 59% had an exposed-site dermatitis/skin problem or a photodermatosis. Some centres ( n = 8) performed readings after the standard 48-h reading, and an extra 32 PA and 22 CA reactions were detected, which were not evident at 48 h. A new photoallergen (octyl triazone) was detected in two patients. Conclusions Sunscreen PA and CA are probably equally uncommon. Most reactions, of both reaction types, were relevant clinically. A large proportion of patients (59%) found to have PA was unaware of reacting to a sunscreen chemical, suggesting that PA should be considered as an explanation in any exposed-site dermatitis. Although this study focused on reactions at 48 h postirradiation, readings performed up to 96 h, while inconvenient, add value by detecting additional relevant responses. A previously unknown photoallergen was found, highlighting the need for awareness of novel photoallergens in the marketplace. A standardized PPT method not only encourages more use of this investigation, but also facilitates comparison of results between centres and so will improve our understanding of PA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/Purpose: Sunscreens are employed with the aim of reducing the deleterious effects of ultraviolet radiation (UVR), but little is known about their use in the UK. Methods: This questionnaire survey assessed attitudes to and usage of sunscreens in northwest England in 2000. Subjects (186 females and 102 males) were recruited from the waiting rooms of four general practices, with a high response rate of 97%. Results: Females were more frequent users of sunscreens than males, but only 35% females and 8% males reported their regular use. Twenty-two per cent of the study population did not use sunscreens at all, whereas 66% of subjects bought a sunscreen product once a year or less. Thirty-four per cent subjects reported experiencing sunburn in the last 2 years. Interestingly, more (60%) sunburns were found to occur at home in the UK than on holidays abroad, and these frequently occurred during outdoor activities other than deliberate sunbathing. Conclusion: There remains much scope for sunscreen education in the British public. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Photodiagnostic investigations are essential for the accurate diagnosis of abnormal cutaneous photosensitivity and provide important information for the management of patients with photodermatoses (cutaneous photosensitivity disorders). Although photodiagnosis has been undertaken since the early 1970s, specialist services in the United Kingdom (UK) and Republic of Ireland are limited and there is no formal guidance on diagnostic approach. Indeed, there is a limited literature in this area of methodology and diagnostic practice., Objectives: The primary objective was to undertake a British Photodermatology Group Workshop to review the role and activities of specialist centres in the UK and Republic of Ireland in order to ascertain whether there were consensus practices. Secondary objectives were to identify key priorities for service, training and research., Methods: An initial detailed survey review of current activities was undertaken prior to the Workshop and data from this survey were used to inform discussion at the Workshop, which was attended by key photodermatology experts from the UK and Republic of Ireland., Results/conclusions: We have undertaken a detailed review of current Photodiagnostic Services in the UK and Republic of Ireland and report on our findings from the 12 centres and we have identified key areas of consensus practice. This is an important step in the process of standardising and optimising procedures and protocols and defining minimum clinical standards for photodiagnostic investigations, which are of such diagnostic importance in Dermatology., (© 2021 European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.)

Background: Sun exposure has positive and negative effects on health, yet little is known about the sun exposure behaviour of UK adolescents, including those more prone or less prone to sunburn., Objective: To examine sun exposure behaviour of UK white Caucasian adolescents including time spent outdoors, holiday behaviour, use of sunscreen and clothing, with assessment for differences between sun-reactive skin type groups., Methods: White Caucasian adolescents (12-15 years) attending schools in Greater Manchester completed a two-page questionnaire to assess sun exposure and photoprotective behaviour., Results: A total of 133 adolescents (median age 13.4 years; 39% skin type I/II, 61% skin type III/IV) completed the questionnaire. In summer, adolescents spent significantly longer outdoors at weekends (median 4 h/day, range 0.25-10) than on weekdays (2, 0.25-6; P < 0.0001). When at home in the UK during summer, 44% reported never wearing sunscreen compared to just 1% when on a sunny holiday. Sunscreen use was also greater (frequency/coverage) when on a sunny holiday than at home in the UK summer (P < 0.0001). Adolescents of skin types I/II (easy burning) spent significantly less time outdoors than skin types III/IV (easy tanning) on summer weekends (P < 0.001), summer weekdays (P < 0.05) and on a sunny holiday (P = 0.001). Furthermore, skin types I/II reported greater sunscreen use during summer in the UK and on sunny holiday (both P < 0.01), and wore clothing covering a greater skin area on a sunny holiday (P < 0.01) than skin types III/IV. There was no difference in sun exposure behaviour/protection between males and females., Conclusion: The greater sun-protective measures reported by adolescents of sun-reactive skin type group I/II than III/IV suggest those who burn more easily are aware of the greater need to protect their skin. However, use of sunscreen during the UK summer is low and may need more effective promotion in adolescents., (© 2014 European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.)