 |
 |

Screening for Drug Toxicity by Wave Lengths Greater Than 3,100 A
HOWARD I. MAIBACH, MD;
W. MITCHELL SAMS, JR., MD;
JOHN H. EPSTEIN, MD
Arch Dermatol. 1967;95(1):12-15.
Abstract
Normal healthy adult male volunteers receiving 150 mg demethylchlortetracycline four times daily were exposed to several forms of light including the fluorescent bulb, the Kromayer unit, the carbon arc lamp, and natural sunlight. All efforts to demonstrate phototoxicity of this standard agent failed until the erythema producing rays of natural sunlight were excluded with plastic film (Mylar).
When the erythema producing rays of natural sunlight are removed with plastic and the subjects exposed for from two to four hours of natural sunlight, obvious phototoxicity occurred. DMCT treated subjects demonstrated frank erythema, whereas control subjects had either pigment darkening (Meirowsky phenomena), or no response.
Attempts to reproduce this result with artificial light sources failed.
This model is proposed as a screening method to ascertain the phototoxicity of compounds absorbing light rays longer than 3100 Angstroms (A).
Author Affiliations
SAN FRANCISCO
From the Division of Dermatology, Department of Medicine, University of California School of Medicine (Drs. Maibach and Sams), and the Dermatology Research Section, Research and Development Service, Letterman General Hospital (Dr. Epstein), San Francisco.
Footnotes
Accepted for publication Oct 5, 1966.
Reprint requests to Division of Dermatology, University of California San Francisco Medical Center, San Francisco 94122 (Dr. Maibach).
CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us Digg Reddit Technorati Twitter
What's this?
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
Antimicrobial Photosensitive Reactions
Vassileva et al.
Arch Intern Med 1998;158:1993-2000.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Porphyria-like Cutaneous Changes Induced by Tetracycline Hydrochloride Photosensitization
Epstein et al.
Arch Dermatol 1976;112:661-666.
ABSTRACT
Photosensitive Lichenoid Eruption Associated With Demeclocycline
Jones et al.
Arch Dermatol 1972;106:58-63.
ABSTRACT
|