Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Cutan Ocul Toxicol. 2016;35(2):104-9. doi: 10.3109/15569527.2015.1041032. Epub 2015 May 5.

Effect of oral photochemotherapy (8-methoxypsoralen + UVA) on the electrophysiologic function of retina.

Author information

1
a Faculty of Medicine, Retina Research Center, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences , Mashhad , Islamic Republic of Iran .
2
b Faculty of Medicine, Imam Reza Hospital, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Cutaneous Leishmaniasis Research Center , Mashhad , Islamic Republic of Iran .
3
c Khatam Al Anbia Eye Hospital, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences , Mashhad , Islamic Republic of Iran .
4
d Department of Ophthalmology , Mashhad University of Medical Sciences , Mashhad , Islamic Republic of Iran , and.
5
e School of Paramedicine, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences , Mashhad , Islamic Republic of Iran.

Abstract

CONTEXT:

Since we had observed electroretinographic (ERG) abnormalities in some patients undergoing photochemotherapy with normal eye examination, we decided to investigate the effects of this therapy on retinal function.

OBJECTIVE:

To investigate the effects of oral photochemotherapy (8-methoxypsoralen + Ultraviolet-A) on electrophysiologic function of retina.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

Patients with vitiligo, psoriasis or eczema were enrolled. Patients with any abnormal eye exam or a positive drug or family history for retinal disease were excluded. Baseline standard ERG was provided with the RETIport32 device. The second ERG was performed 6 months after the first and at least 1 week after the last photochemotherapy session (mean number of sessions: 45 ± 11). The outcome measures were changes in rod response, standard combined response, single-flash cone response, 30-Hz flicker (N1-P1) and oscillatory potentials amplitudes.

RESULTS:

Forty patients were enrolled; 20 of them (mean age: 31.1 ± 12 years) completed the study. The mean rod response b-wave amplitude decreased from 88.9 ± 47.5 to 86.4 ± 36.6 and standard combined response b-wave amplitude decreased from 266.52 to 261.85 µV (p = 0.422 and p = 0.968, respectively) and the standard combined response a-wave amplitude increased from 155.4 ± 40.0 at baseline to 165.1 ± 48.4 in the follow-up ERG (p = 0.092). The mean single-flash cone response a-wave amplitude decreased insignificantly in the follow-up ERG trace (34.5 ± 13.7 and 29 ± 15.4, respectively, p = 0.242). The mean single-flash cone response b-wave amplitude showed an insignificant increase (p = 0.087). The amplitudes of 30-Hz flicker wave and oscillatory potentials did not change significantly in the follow-up ERG (p = 0.551 and p = 0.739, respectively).

CONCLUSION:

Since no significant change in ERG traces was observed, oral photochemotherapy seems safe for retinal electrophysiologic function.

KEYWORDS:

Electroretinography; photochemotherapy; psoriasis; retina; vitiligo

PMID:
25942691
DOI:
10.3109/15569527.2015.1041032
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Taylor & Francis
Loading ...
Support Center