A difference in cutaneous pigmentary response to LED versus halogen incandescent visible light: A case report from a single center, investigational clinical trial determining a minimal pigmentary visible light dose

Teo Soleymani, Nicholas A. Soter, Lorcan Folan, Nada Elbuluk, Uchenna R. Okereke, David E. Cohen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

BACKGROUND: While most of the attention regarding skin pigmentation has focused on the effects on ultraviolet radiation, the cutaneous effects of visible light (400 to 700nm) are rarely reported. In this report, we describe a case of painful erythema and induration that resulted from direct irradiation of UV-naïve skin with visible LED light in a patient with Fitzpatrick type II skin. METHODS AND RESULTS: A 24-year-old healthy woman with Fitzpatrick type II skin presented to our department to participate in a clinical study. As part of the study, the subject underwent visible light irradiation with an LED and halogen incandescent visible light source. After 5 minutes of exposure, the patient complained of appreciable pain at the LED exposed site. Evaluation demonstrated erythema and mild induration. There were no subjective or objective findings at the halogen incandescent irradiated site, which received equivalent fluence (0.55 Watts / cm2). The study was halted as the subject was unable to tolerate the full duration of visible light irradiation. CONCLUSION: This case illustrates the importance of recognizing the effects of visible light on skin. While the vast majority of investigational research has focused on ultraviolet light, the effects of visible light have been largely overlooked and must be taken into consideration, in all Fitzpatrick skin types.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)388-392
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of Drugs in Dermatology
Volume16
Issue number4
StatePublished - Apr 1 2017

Fingerprint

Halogens
Clinical Trials
Light
Skin
Erythema
Skin Pigmentation
Radiation Effects
Ultraviolet Rays
Pain
Research

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)
  • Dermatology

Cite this

A difference in cutaneous pigmentary response to LED versus halogen incandescent visible light : A case report from a single center, investigational clinical trial determining a minimal pigmentary visible light dose. / Soleymani, Teo; Soter, Nicholas A.; Folan, Lorcan; Elbuluk, Nada; Okereke, Uchenna R.; Cohen, David E.

In: Journal of Drugs in Dermatology, Vol. 16, No. 4, 01.04.2017, p. 388-392.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{a54416f226244b2995e7ec497e40e188,
title = "A difference in cutaneous pigmentary response to LED versus halogen incandescent visible light: A case report from a single center, investigational clinical trial determining a minimal pigmentary visible light dose",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: While most of the attention regarding skin pigmentation has focused on the effects on ultraviolet radiation, the cutaneous effects of visible light (400 to 700nm) are rarely reported. In this report, we describe a case of painful erythema and induration that resulted from direct irradiation of UV-na{\"i}ve skin with visible LED light in a patient with Fitzpatrick type II skin. METHODS AND RESULTS: A 24-year-old healthy woman with Fitzpatrick type II skin presented to our department to participate in a clinical study. As part of the study, the subject underwent visible light irradiation with an LED and halogen incandescent visible light source. After 5 minutes of exposure, the patient complained of appreciable pain at the LED exposed site. Evaluation demonstrated erythema and mild induration. There were no subjective or objective findings at the halogen incandescent irradiated site, which received equivalent fluence (0.55 Watts / cm2). The study was halted as the subject was unable to tolerate the full duration of visible light irradiation. CONCLUSION: This case illustrates the importance of recognizing the effects of visible light on skin. While the vast majority of investigational research has focused on ultraviolet light, the effects of visible light have been largely overlooked and must be taken into consideration, in all Fitzpatrick skin types.",
author = "Teo Soleymani and Soter, {Nicholas A.} and Lorcan Folan and Nada Elbuluk and Okereke, {Uchenna R.} and Cohen, {David E.}",
year = "2017",
month = "4",
day = "1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "16",
pages = "388--392",
journal = "Journal of Drugs in Dermatology",
issn = "1545-9616",
publisher = "Journal of Drugs in Dermatology",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A difference in cutaneous pigmentary response to LED versus halogen incandescent visible light

T2 - A case report from a single center, investigational clinical trial determining a minimal pigmentary visible light dose

AU - Soleymani, Teo

AU - Soter, Nicholas A.

AU - Folan, Lorcan

AU - Elbuluk, Nada

AU - Okereke, Uchenna R.

AU - Cohen, David E.

PY - 2017/4/1

Y1 - 2017/4/1

N2 - BACKGROUND: While most of the attention regarding skin pigmentation has focused on the effects on ultraviolet radiation, the cutaneous effects of visible light (400 to 700nm) are rarely reported. In this report, we describe a case of painful erythema and induration that resulted from direct irradiation of UV-naïve skin with visible LED light in a patient with Fitzpatrick type II skin. METHODS AND RESULTS: A 24-year-old healthy woman with Fitzpatrick type II skin presented to our department to participate in a clinical study. As part of the study, the subject underwent visible light irradiation with an LED and halogen incandescent visible light source. After 5 minutes of exposure, the patient complained of appreciable pain at the LED exposed site. Evaluation demonstrated erythema and mild induration. There were no subjective or objective findings at the halogen incandescent irradiated site, which received equivalent fluence (0.55 Watts / cm2). The study was halted as the subject was unable to tolerate the full duration of visible light irradiation. CONCLUSION: This case illustrates the importance of recognizing the effects of visible light on skin. While the vast majority of investigational research has focused on ultraviolet light, the effects of visible light have been largely overlooked and must be taken into consideration, in all Fitzpatrick skin types.

AB - BACKGROUND: While most of the attention regarding skin pigmentation has focused on the effects on ultraviolet radiation, the cutaneous effects of visible light (400 to 700nm) are rarely reported. In this report, we describe a case of painful erythema and induration that resulted from direct irradiation of UV-naïve skin with visible LED light in a patient with Fitzpatrick type II skin. METHODS AND RESULTS: A 24-year-old healthy woman with Fitzpatrick type II skin presented to our department to participate in a clinical study. As part of the study, the subject underwent visible light irradiation with an LED and halogen incandescent visible light source. After 5 minutes of exposure, the patient complained of appreciable pain at the LED exposed site. Evaluation demonstrated erythema and mild induration. There were no subjective or objective findings at the halogen incandescent irradiated site, which received equivalent fluence (0.55 Watts / cm2). The study was halted as the subject was unable to tolerate the full duration of visible light irradiation. CONCLUSION: This case illustrates the importance of recognizing the effects of visible light on skin. While the vast majority of investigational research has focused on ultraviolet light, the effects of visible light have been largely overlooked and must be taken into consideration, in all Fitzpatrick skin types.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85029005272&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85029005272&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 28403275

AN - SCOPUS:85029005272

VL - 16

SP - 388

EP - 392

JO - Journal of Drugs in Dermatology

JF - Journal of Drugs in Dermatology

SN - 1545-9616

IS - 4

ER -