This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Correction  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (7)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related articles  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Dermatologic Procedures  • Phototherapy  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Paula E. Beattie, MRCP; Robert S. Dawe, MD; James Ferguson, MD; Sally H. Ibbotson, MD

Arch Dermatol. 2005;141:1549-1555.

Objective  To determine the time course and dose-response characteristics of UV-A1 erythema in the Tayside region of Scotland.

Design  Adult volunteers (skin types I and II [n = 13] and III and IV [n = 11]) were exposed to geometric dose series of UV-A1 irradiation from a high-output source on photoprotected lower back and inner forearm skin.

Setting  Photobiology unit in a university hospital.

Main Outcome Measures  The minimal erythema dose (MED) was recorded visually and erythema was assessed objectively by erythema meter at 4, 8, 24, and 48 hours after exposure.

Results  Peak erythema (lowest visual MED) was seen at 8 hours on the back and arm in 11 subjects with skin types I and II and on the back at 8 hours in 9 subjects and on the arm at 4 hours in 10 subjects with skin types III and IV. The lowest median (range) MED was 20 J/cm² (14-56 J/cm²) on the back and 42 J/cm² (20 to >80 J/cm²) on the arm at 8 hours for subjects with skin types I and II and 28 J/cm² (20-112 J/cm²) at 8 hours on the back and 56 J/cm² (28-80 J/cm²) at 4 hours on the arm for subjects with skin types III and IV. The D_0.025, an objective measure that corresponds approximately to the visual MED, demonstrated a broad peak from 8 to 24 hours.

Conclusions  Our local population is more erythemally sensitive to UV-A1 radiation than reports suggest. Daily dose regimens may risk cumulative erythema. Lower starting doses should be used in this population. The wide range of MEDs highlights the need for MED testing.

Author Affiliations: Photobiology Unit, Dermatology Department, University of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee, Scotland.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

RELATED ARTICLES

Impact of Obesity and Smoking on Psoriasis Presentation and Management
Mark D. Herron, Michael Hinckley, Matthew S. Hoffman, Jason Papenfuss, Christopher B. Hansen, Kristina P. Callis, and Gerald G. Krueger
Arch Dermatol. 2005;141(12):1527-1534.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Prevalence and Treatment of Psoriasis in the United Kingdom: A Population-Based Study
Joel M. Gelfand, Rachel Weinstein, Steven B. Porter, Andrea L. Neimann, Jesse A. Berlin, and David J. Margolis
Arch Dermatol. 2005;141(12):1537-1541.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Targeted UV-B Phototherapy for Plaque-type Psoriasis
Pravit Asawanonda, Akkrawat Chingchai, and Pawinee Torranin
Arch Dermatol. 2005;141(12):1542-1546.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Soak and Smear: A Standard Technique Revisited
Ari Benjamin Gutman, Albert M. Kligman, Joslyn Sciacca, and William D. James
Arch Dermatol. 2005;141(12):1556-1559.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Relationship Between Smoking and the Clinical Severity of Psoriasis
Cristina Fortes, Simona Mastroeni, Karen Leffondré, Francesca Sampogna, Franco Melchi, Eva Mazzotti, Paolo Pasquini, Damiano Abeni, and for the IDI Multipurpose Psoriasis Research on Vital Experiences (IMPROVE) Study Group
Arch Dermatol. 2005;141(12):1580-1584.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Advances in Psoriasis
Mark G. Lebwohl
Arch Dermatol. 2005;141(12):1589-1590.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Advances in Psoriasis
Lebwohl
Arch Dermatol 2005;141:1589-1590.
FULL TEXT