 |
 |

Photoallergy and PhotosensitivityDue to Systemically Administered Drugs
H. STORCK, MD
Arch Dermatol. 1965;91(5):469-482.
Abstract
 |  |
Physical and clinical conditions concerning the photosensitizing activity of systemically administered drugs (sulfonamides, phenothiazines, tetracyclines) are discussed. The photodynamic action depends upon the absorption spectrum of the drugs. They are photosensitizing when they show increasing absorption in long range ultraviolet, as well as color formation within minutes by in vitro ultraviolet irradiation. In some cases, the observation of certain physical and clinical facts allows the phototoxic reactions to be distinguished from the photoallergic ones. Sulfonamides and phenothiazines can cause both kinds of photoreactions; tetracyclines, and especially demethyltetracycline, only phototoxic changes. In sulfonamides, the mechanism of photoallergy consists probably in photooxidation (building of p-hydroxylamino-benzene-amide) and formation of photoalbumin complexes; in phenothiazines, the mechanism involves photooxidation, possibly photodimerization, and photodecoloration with demethyltetracycline. Cross-reactions allow the analyses of the active molecule particles.
Author Affiliations
ZURICH, SWITZERLAND
Professor of Dermatology, Chairman of the Dermatological Department of the Zurich University School of Medicine, Zurich, Switzerland.
Footnotes
Accepted for publication Aug 12, 1964.
Howard Fox Memorial Lecture, held at the New York Medical Center, New York on May 5, 1964.
Reprint requests to Dr. Storck.
CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us Digg Reddit Technorati Twitter
What's this?
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
Subacute Cutaneous Lupus Erythematosus Associated with Hydrochlorothiazide Therapy
REED et al.
ANN INTERN MED 1985;103:49-51.
ABSTRACT
Persistent Phototoxicity Due To Nalidixic Acid
Burry
Arch Dermatol 1974;109:263-263.
ABSTRACT
Photoallergy: A Review
Epstein
Arch Dermatol 1972;106:741-748.
ABSTRACT
The "Spectral Shift" Phenomenon of Chloroquine
SAMS and CARROLL
Arch Dermatol 1966;93:123-128.
ABSTRACT
|