The first two authors contributed equally to this work.
Skin hardening effect in patients with polymorphic light eruption: Comparison of UVB hardening in hospital with a novel home UV-hardening device
Article first published online: 6 DEC 2011
© 2011 The Authors. Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology © 2011 European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology
Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology
Volume 27, Issue 1, pages 67–72, January 2013
How to Cite
Franken, S.M., Genders, R.E., de Gruijl, F.R., Rustemeyer, T. and Pavel, S. (2013), Skin hardening effect in patients with polymorphic light eruption: Comparison of UVB hardening in hospital with a novel home UV-hardening device. Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, 27: 67–72. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-3083.2011.04358.x
Funding sources Placement of SunshowerMedical devices was organized and financed by SunshowerMedical Amsterdam. All patients received a small financial reward for their participation in the study. SunshowerMedical had no involvement in study design, data collection, data analysis, manuscript preparation and/or publication decisions.
Conflict of interest None.
- Issue published online: 18 DEC 2012
- Article first published online: 6 DEC 2011
- Received: 4 May 2011; Accepted: 7 November 2011
Background An effective prophylactic treatment of patients with polymorphic light eruption (PLE) consists of repeated low, gradually increasing exposures to UVB radiation. This so-called UV(B) hardening induces better tolerance of the skin to sunlight.
Objective SunshowerMedical company (Amsterdam) has developed an UV (B) source that can be used during taking shower. The low UV fluence of this apparatus makes it an interesting device for UV hardening. In a group of PLE patients, we compared the effectiveness of the irradiation with SunshowerMedical at home with that of the UVB treatment in the hospital.
Methods The PLE patients were randomized for one of the treatments. The hospital treatment consisted of irradiations with broad-band UVB (Waldmann 85/UV21 lamps) twice a week during 6 weeks. The home UV-device was used each day with the maximal irradiation time of 6 min. The outcome assessment was based on the information obtained from patients’ dermatological quality of life (DLQI) questionnaires, the ability of both phototherapies to reduce the provocation reaction and from the patients’ evaluation of the long-term benefits of their phototherapies.
Results Sixteen patients completed treatment with SunshowerMedical and thirteen completed treatment in hospital. Both types of phototherapy were effective. There was a highly significant improvement in DLQI with either treatment. In most cases, the hardening reduced or even completely suppressed clinical UV provocation of PLE. The patients using SunshowerMedical at home were, however, much more content with the treatment procedure than the patients visiting the dermatological units.
Conclusions Both treatments were equally effective in the induction of skin tolerance to sunlight in PLE patients. However, the home treatment was much better accepted than the treatment in the hospital.