Ultraviolet A1 phototherapy: One center's experience

• Published in: Indian journal of dermatology, venereology, and leprology venereology, and leprology, 2017-01, Vol.83 (1), p.60-65
• Main Authors: Attili, Sasi, Dawe, Robert, Ibbotson, Sally
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Atopic dermatitis; Care and treatment; Child; Dose-Response Relationship, Radiation; Female; Health aspects; Humans; Lupus; Male; Middle Aged; Phototherapy; Phototherapy - methods; Retrospective Studies; Skin Diseases - diagnosis; Skin Diseases - therapy; Ultraviolet Therapy - methods; Young Adult
• ISSN: 0378-6323; 0973-3922; 1998-3611
• DOI: 10.4103/0378-6323.182805

Background: Ultraviolet A1(UVA1) phototherapy is increasingly being used in the treatment of morphea, atopic dermatitis, lupus and some other recalcitrant dermatoses. We present a retrospective review of our experience with this modality. Aim: To evaluate the treatment response rates for various dermatoses and adverse effects of UVA1 phototherapy. Methods: We reviewed phototherapy notes along with electronic and/or paper case records for all patients treated with UVA1 phototherapy from October 1996 to December 2008. Results: A total of 269 patients (outcomes available for 247) had 361 treatment courses (treatment data available for 317 courses) over this period. We found phototherapy to be beneficial in 28 (53%) of 53 patients with atopic dermatitis and 19 (51%) of 37 patients with morphea. A beneficial outcome was recorded in all six (100%) cases of urticaria and six (85.7%) of seven patients treated for a polymorphic light eruption. Benefit was also recorded in systemic lupus erythematosus (8 (44.4%) of 18), lichen sclerosus (6 (42.9%) of 14), mastocytosis (2 (33.3%) of 6), necrobiosis lipoidica (4 (30.8%) of 13), granuloma annulare (2 (25%) of 8), scleroderma (2 (22.2%) of 9) and keloids (1 (7.7%) of 13). Overall, treatment was well tolerated with no patients having to stop treatment due to adverse effects. Limitations: This is a retrospective study with no control group. Subjective/recall bias is quite possible as a number of patients were followed up over the phone. Conclusions: Our data suggest that ultraviolet A1 can be considered for the treatment of selected dermatoses. However, long-term malignancy risk is as yet unknown.