Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Thoughts on the interpretation of positive photopatch test reactions

  • Clinical report
  • Published:
European Journal of Dermatology

Abstract

Background

Positive photopatch test reactions are classified according to the International Contact Dermatitis Group. The various reaction patterns are interpreted to represent patterns such as contact allergy, photocontact allergy, photoaugmentation, and photoinhibition.

Objective

To investigate whether there are any weaknesses in the interpretation of reaction patterns.

Materials & Methods

A dermatitis patient with photoallergic contact dermatitis due to ketoprofen was photopatch tested with serial dilutions of ketoprofen in ethanol. The reaction patterns for the various concentrations were used as a basis for discussion on weaknesses regarding the present interpretations of positive photopatch test reactions.

Results

The reaction patterns to the ketoprofen photopatch at various concentrations were interpreted as (i) contact allergy, (ii) contact allergy with photoaugmentation, (iii) contact allergy and photocontact allergy, and (iv) photocontact allergy.

Conclusion

The present interpretation of positive photopatch test reactions is unreliable and therefore insufficient regarding appropriate advice for patients.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bruze M. What is a relevant contact allergy? Contact Dermatitis 1990; 23: 224–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Thune P, Jansén C, Wennersten G, et al. The Scandinavian multicenter photopatch study 1980–1985: final report. Photodermatol 1988; 5: 261–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bruynzeel DP, Ferguson J, Andersen K, et al. European Taskforce for Photopatch Testing. Photopatch testing: a consensus methodology for Europe. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2004; 18: 679–82.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Bryden AM, Moseley H, Ibbotson SH, et al. Photopatch testing of 1155 patients: results of the U.K. multicentre photopatch study group. Br J Dermatol 2006; 155: 73747.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Pigatto PD, Guzzi G, Schena D, et al. Photopatch tests: an Italian multicentre study from 2004 to 2006. Contact Dermatitis 2008; 59: 103–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bylaite M, Grigaitiene J, Lapinskaite GS. Photodermatoses: classification, evaluation and management. Br J Dermatol 2009; 161: 61–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. European Multicentre Photopatch Test Study (EMCPPTS) Task-force. A European multicentre photopatch test study. Br J Dermatol 2012; 166: 1002–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Goncalo M, Ferguson J, Bonevalle A, et al. Photopatch testing: recommendations for a European photopatch test baseline series. Contact Dermatitis 2013; 68: 23943.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Goncalo M. In: Lepoittevin JP., Frosch P. (eds) Contact Dermatitis. Springer, Cham.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72451-5_29-1

  10. Johansen JD, Aalto-Korte K, Agner T, et al. European Society of Contact Dermatitis guideline for diagnostic patch testing — recommendations on best practice. Contact Dermatitis 2015; 73: 195–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Fregert S. Manual of Contact Dermatitis, 2nd edition. Munksgaard Copenhagen, 1981.

  12. Isaksson M, Gruvberger B, Frick-Engfeldt M, Bruze M. Which test chambers should be used for acetone, ethanol, and water solutions when patch testing? Contact Dermatitis 2007; 57: 134–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Beattie PE, Traynor NJ, Woods JA, et al. Can a positive photopatch test be elicited by subclinical irritancy or allergy plus suberythemal UV exposure? Contact Dermatitis 2004; 51: 235–40.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Björk AK, Bruze M, Engfeldt M, et al. The reactivity of the back revisited. Are there differences in reactivity in different parts of the back? Contact Dermatitis 2017; 76: 19–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Engfeldt M, Hagvall L, Isaksson M, et al. Patch testing with hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde (HICC) — a multicentre study of the Swedish Contact Dermatitis Research Group. Contact Dermatitis 2017; 76: 34–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Frick-Engfeldt M, Gruvberger B, Isaksson M, et al. Comparison of three different techniques for application of water solutions to Finn Chambers®. Contact Dermatitis 2010; 63: 284–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Hasan T, Jansen CT. Photopatch test reactivity: effect of photoallergen concentration and UVA dosaging. Contact Dermatitis 1996; 34: 383–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Occupational and Environmental Dermatology, Lund University, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden

    Magnus Bruze

Authors
  1. Magnus Bruze
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Magnus Bruze.

Additional information

Disclosure

Financial support: none.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bruze, M. Thoughts on the interpretation of positive photopatch test reactions. Eur J Dermatol 30, 541–544 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1684/ejd.2020.3877

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1684/ejd.2020.3877

Key words

Search

Navigation