Download UV-A1 Therapy for Nephrogenic Systemic Fibrosis

OBSERVATION
UV-A1 Therapy for Nephrogenic Systemic Fibrosis
Kien T. Tran, MD, PhD; Heidi B. Prather, BS; Clay J. Cockerell, MD; Heidi Jacobe, MD
Background: Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis (NSF) is
a rare sclerosing skin condition associated with endstage renal disease and gadolinium exposure. Therapy for
NSF is challenging, with few options other than preventing exposure to gadolinium and improving renal function through transplant. However, in some cases neither of these options is tenable. We report the successful
use of UV-A1 phototherapy in 4 patients with NSF.
Observations: Four patients with NSF were treated with
UV-A1 phototherapy at a tertiary medical center from 2005
through 2007. To our knowledge, it is unique to this series that all patients were receiving hemodialysis before,
during, and after therapy with UV-A1. All experienced improvement in the degree of induration, and 2 experienced improvement in mobility of the hands and legs. Total
O
treatments ranged from 22 treatments (with a cumulative dose of 1855 J/cm2) to 50 treatments (total UV-A1 exposure, 3850 J/cm2). No adverse events were observed.
Conclusions: Although no patient had complete resolution of indurated plaques, the improvement was substantial. For 2 patients, it resulted in a resumption of hand
and leg mobility. As a result, UV-A1 therapy may represent a treatment for NSF when kidney transplantation is
not an option or is delayed. Limitations of this study include the lack of a controlled trial, lack of quantification
of gadolinium levels within tissue, and the lack of a defined grading scale for NSF severity.
Arch Dermatol. 2009;145(10):1170-1174
RIGINALLY DESIGNATED
nephrogenic fibrosing
dermopathy, nephrogenic systemic fibrosis
(NSF) is a rare, sclerosing skin condition that usually occurs in the
setting of renal insufficiency, especially
chronic kidney disease requiring hemodialysis.1-9 Exposure to gadolinium, especially the gadodiamide form, has been implicated in almost all cases of NSF.10 Lesions
are initially usually edematous, erythematous plaques on the distal extremities.11 Over
See also pages 1095,
1164, and 1178
Author Affiliations:
Department of Dermatology,
University of Texas
Southwestern Medical Center,
Dallas.
time, they develop a woody induration with
a cobblestone appearance. Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis may rarely involve extracutaneous sites such as skeletal muscle, the
diaphragm, and myocardium.12-15 Pruritus, pain, and burning accompany NSF,
along with loss of joint mobility.
No definitive treatment for NSF exists. Because it is rare, the existing literature consists of case reports or case series. Currently, prevention of exposure to
(REPRINTED) ARCH DERMATOL/ VOL 145 (NO. 10), OCT 2009
1170
gadolinium in patients with renal impairment is considered ideal. Improvement in
renal function is associated with involution of NSF lesions in some cases.16-23 Thus,
transplantation is a potential means of
therapy.24 Extracorporeal photopheresis
(ECP) is another modality with the some
supporting evidence for efficacy.25-30 Case
reports of treatments with varying success include imatinib mesylate, plasmapharesis, intravenous immunoglobin, topical steroids, topical calicipotriene, and oral
immunosuppressants such as methotrexate.31,32 Other reported treatments include psoralen UV-A (PUVA) and photodynamic therapy.30,33-35 These modalities
all have significant drawbacks, including
their invasive nature, the cost of ECP, problems with polypharmacy, and immunosuppression in a population with clinically significant preexisting morbidity.
Ultraviolet A1 phototherapy is attractive
because it avoids these issues.
Ultraviolet light therapy in the longwave UV-A range (340-400 nm) is a potentially viable treatment option for NSF because of its deep penetration into the dermis
and superficial part of the subcutis.36,37 In
addition, UV-A1 is used successfully in
WWW.ARCHDERMATOL.COM
©2009 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.
Downloaded From: http://jamanetwork.com/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/derm/5229/ on 05/08/2017
Table. Patient Summary
Patient No.
Patient Profile
Cause of kidney disease
Stage of kidney disease
Time to onset of NSF after gadolinium
exposure
Duration of hemodialysis before NSF
symptoms presented
Time between initial symptoms and UV-A1
treatment
Hemodialysis during and after UV-A1
treatment?
Renal transplant?
NSF proven by biopsy?
Type of gadolinium
Fitzpatrick skin type
Treatments until documented improvement,
No. (total UV-A1 exposure, J/cm2)
Treatments, No. (total UV-A1 exposure until
discontinuation, J/cm2)
Relapse
1
2
3
Tacrolimus toxic
effects
ESRD
3 wk
Hypertension
3 wk
2 mo
Diabetic
nephropathy
ESRD
Few months
(unspecified)
9y
ESRD
Few months
(unspecified)
3 mo
2 mo
2 mo
2y
3 mo
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Gadodiamide
No
Yes
Gadodiamide
No
Yes
Unknown
2
10 (505)
3
16 (1540)
No
Yes
Gadopentate
dimeglumine
4
32 (3140)
50 (3850)
16 (1540)
41 (4065)
22 (1855)
No
No
No
No
ESRD
5 mo
4
Hypertension
5
9 (700)
Abbreviations: ESRD, end-stage renal disease; NSF, nephrogenic systemic fibrosis.
other sclerosing skin conditions, including localized scleroderma, systemic sclerosis, and chronic sclerodermoid graft
vs host disease. 38 There is 1 prior case report of the successful use of UV-A1 phototherapy in NSF.39 However, the
patient had transient renal compromise and did not require hemodialysis. This makes it difficult to determine if
improvement was the result of normalization of renal function or UV-A1. Herein, we report the use of UV-A1 therapy
to treat 4 patients with NSF. Unique to these cases is the
chronicity of hemodialysis. All patients were undergoing
hemodialysis prior to, during, and after treatment with UVA1, with no notable change in renal function.
METHODS
From 2005 through 2007, 4 patients with NSF were evaluated
at the University of Texas–Southwestern (UTSW) Medical Center in Dallas. All shared clinical and histologic features supporting the diagnosis of NSF along with a medical history of endstage renal disease (ESRD) requiring hemodialysis. In all patients,
hemodialysis protocols remained unaltered during and after treatment with UV-A1. Patient characteristics and outcome are outlined in the following case summaries and in the Table.
All patients were treated with a UV-A1 bed (Sellamed Systems, model 24000; Sellamed, Gevelsberg, Germany). Output
for this device is 5 J/cm2 per minute. Patients were treated 3
times per week beginning with a low to medium dose (30-60
J/cm2) increasing to a high dose (120 J/cm2) of UV-A1. The starting dose was determined by Fitzpatrick skin type. The dosage
was increased by 10 J/cm2 per visit as long as no erythema occurred. If mild erythema occurred, the dose was maintained.
If moderate erythema occurred, the dose was lowered to the
prior level. Standard safety precautions, including the use of
protective eyewear, were maintained. All patients were treated
and evaluated by the same physician (H.J.). Improvement was
ascertained by the ability to make a fist; the range of motion at
the ankle, knee, waist, and elbow; the ability to ambulate; de-
gree of induration by palpation; and the progression of lesions
before and after treatment.
RESULTS
CASE 1
Patient 1 was a 62-year-old white woman with a history
of alpha-1-antitrypsin deficiency requiring a lung transplant in 1995 with renal insufficiency. She was admitted in 2006 for acute renal failure thought to be related
to the toxic effects of tacrolimus. During this admission, she received a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)
scan with gadodiamide contrast for evaluation of altered mental status. Hemodialysis was started simultaneously. After 3 weeks, she developed erythematous,
edematous plaques with some desquamation on her extensor and volar forearms, legs, thighs, and buttocks. She
complained of pruritus and burning along with loss of
range of motion in her ankles and hands. Findings from
her biopsy specimen were consistent with clinically suspected NSF. Workup by a rheumatologist included an
antinuclear antibody (ANA) profile and a doublestranded DNA profile. Findings from both tests were negative. She did not meet diagnostic criteria for scleroderma. After 2 months, UV-A1 therapy was instituted at
30 J/cm2. At the time treatment was initiated, the patient had experienced progressively worsening induration of her extremities. She could weakly twitch her fingers but was unable to make a fist and had limited mobility
at the knee and ankle, resulting in difficulty in walking.
Within 10 treatments at a total dose of 505 J/cm2, the patient noted a decrease in the sclerosis and edema of her
arms and legs along with decreased pruritus and burning. After 50 treatments (total dose, 3850 J/cm2), she was
(REPRINTED) ARCH DERMATOL/ VOL 145 (NO. 10), OCT 2009
1171
WWW.ARCHDERMATOL.COM
©2009 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.
Downloaded From: http://jamanetwork.com/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/derm/5229/ on 05/08/2017
Figure 1. Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis in patient 4. Erythematous
indurated and tender plaques with scale on the midthigh on initial
presentation.
tremities. The patient had received an MRI scan with
gadodiamide contrast 5 months prior. On examination,
her left arm and forearm had greater involvement than
her right. Her calves had plaques covering the lateral and
posterior surfaces. Her range of motion was intact in the
upper and lower extremities. Findings from a biopsy were
compatible with the clinical suspicion for NSF. Findings from a workup for scleroderma, including ANA, antiscl70, and anticentromere antibody profiles, were negative. Previous treatment included triamcinolone acetonide
cream without improvement, and actual progression of
the lesions. Treatment with UV-A1 was started at a dose
of 60 J/cm2 2 months after the onset of NSF. At follow-up after 16 treatments, the patient experienced notable improvement with decreased induration, and disease progression was halted. Ultraviolet A1 therapy was
discontinued at the patient’s request owing to improvement and problems with travel. One year after discontinuing UV-A1 therapy, the patient maintained improvement without development of new lesions.
CASE 3
Figure 2. Punch biopsy specimen of an indurated plaque. A prominent deep
dermal proliferation of numerous, slender, spindled cells with extension
along the interlobular septae of the subcutaneous fat exists. There are
minimal lymphocytes in the interlobular septae and a suggestion of mucin
between the proliferating spindled cells. The cells stained dually for CD34
and procollagen I. Colloidal iron stain suggested a foci of mucin (original
magnification ⫻20).
able to nearly make a fist. She continued to experience
induration of her legs, but her range of motion was improved, and progression of the disease had halted. Ultraviolet A1 therapy was discontinued, and the patient
continued to receive physical therapy to increase the
mobility in her hands. One year after UV-A1 therapy was
discontinued, her condition remained stable, with no recurrence of disease activity. She was able to make a fist
and experienced continued improvement in range of
motion at the knee and ankle along with improved
ambulation.
CASE 2
Patient 2 was a 72-year-old white woman with a history
of hypertension resulting in ESRD who had been undergoing hemodialysis for 3 months prior to developing erythematous, tender plaques on her upper and lower ex-
Patient 3 was a 57-year-old Hispanic woman with a history of diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and hepatitis C who
had been undergoing long-term hemodialysis for ESRD
secondary to diabetic nephropathy. She had an MRI scan
with gadopentate dimeglumine, with onset of lesions
shortly thereafter. She was initially treated with antibiotics for presumed cellulitis but had no other treatment. Her
initial evaluation at UTSW Medical Center occurred 2 years
after she had developed contiguous woody plaques on the
upper and lower extremities, sparing the trunk. Her lesions impaired daily function with severe involvement of
her popliteal fossa and ankles, resulting in an inability to
walk and a very limited range of motion of the wrists and
elbows. Biopsy findings, along with clinical presentation,
were consistent with NSF. Therapy with UV-A1 was instituted at 60 J/cm2. After 32 sessions, she was noted to
have softening in the popliteal fossa with ability to extend the legs and improved mobility. The treatments were
continued for 41 sessions (total dose, 4065 J/cm2). She also
received physical therapy. After discontinuation of UVA1, she did not have recurrence or progression of her NSF
(remission) and had regained her ability to walk. This was
maintained up to 6 months after discontinuation of UVA1; thereafter the patient was lost to follow-up.
CASE 4
Patient 4 was a 71-year-old African American woman with
a history of hypertension resulting in ESRD who had been
undergoing hemodialysis for 3 months when she developed erythematous, tender plaques on the forearm of the
left arm along with bilateral involvement of the posterior arms, thighs, and legs (Figure 1). The plaques occurred a few months after the patient underwent MRI with
gadolinium contrast and, over time, developed woody induration. Biopsy findings were consistent with NSF
(Figure 2). Ultraviolet A1 therapy was instituted at a
dosage of 60 J/cm2. Follow-up at treatment 9 (total dose,
1160 J/cm2) showed improvement in induration. At treat-
(REPRINTED) ARCH DERMATOL/ VOL 145 (NO. 10), OCT 2009
1172
WWW.ARCHDERMATOL.COM
©2009 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.
Downloaded From: http://jamanetwork.com/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/derm/5229/ on 05/08/2017
ment 22 (total dose, 3310 J/cm2), UV-A1 phototherapy
was discontinued owing to considerable improvement in
existing lesions and apparent remission of active disease. The improvement was maintained during 9 months
of follow-up.
COMMENT
This case series comprised 4 patients with NSF who were
treated successfully with UV-A1 therapy. All of the patients had exposure to gadolinium either concurrent with
or before development of cutaneous signs suggestive of
NSF. Patients had histologic evidence supporting NSF
to verify the clinical findings. No patient developed signs
of systemic involvement that would necessitate systemic treatment in place of or in addition to UV-A1 phototherapy. To our knowledge, it is unique to this case series that all patients were diagnosed as having ESRD and
were receiving hemodialysis before, during, and after presentation with NSF. Cutaneous improvement did not occur until after institution of UV-A1 therapy. After UV-A1
therapy was discontinued, no patient had a relapse, nor
did any patient have spontaneous continued improvement (patients were in remission).
Within our study, all patients had experienced improvement in induration with a decrease in pain and pruritus. For patients 1 and 3, the concomitant increase in
joint mobility resulted in an enhanced quality of life that
was the major therapeutic benefit of UV-A1 therapy. However, none had complete resolution of cutaneous findings. This might relate to premature discontinuation of
therapy in some cases. All had difficulty maintaining triweekly appointment schedules in light of their ongoing
hemodialysis. Another possibility might be the inability
of UV-A1 to penetrate to the entire depth of the lesion.40
The mechanism of action of UV-A1 in the treatment
of NSF is unclear. In other sclerotic conditions, such as
systemic sclerosis, there is an increase in type I and type
III collagen.41,42 In scleroderma, UV-A1 radiation seems
to increase synthesis of collagenase I in vitro and in vivo
in fibroblasts.43,44 Along with this, UV irradiation inhibits procollagen synthesis in human skin.45 Kafi et al46 were
able to demonstrate elevated procollagen I and III messenger RNA (mRNA) levels along with an increased
mRNA level in the upstream signaling elements of transforming growth factor ␤ and connective growth factor
in NSF.46 Twelve weeks of UV-A1 phototherapy resulted in a decrease in induration along with normalization of the mRNA levels of these cytokines and procollagen in the same report by Kafi et al.46 This would suggest
that UV-A1 therapy alters the cytokine levels relating to
fibrocytes to promote a less fibrotic environment. Also,
initiation of UV-A1 early in the development of NSF is
of greater benefit.
No therapy, including renal transplant, is totally effective in the treatment of NSF. In lieu of a renal transplant, ECP is currently the treatment option with the most
supporting data.47 Although ECP is a well-tolerated procedure, it is more invasive than UV light therapy, requiring large-bore peripheral venous access or central venous
access. Adverse effects from ECP include hypotension,
flulike symptoms, and anemia.48 Extracorporeal photopheresis is also more costly than UV-A1. Psoralen–
UV-A therapy has also shown promise in the treatment
of NSF, but utilization of PUVA requires oral ingestion
of psoralens and concomitant adverse effects. Furthermore, patients undergoing hemodialysis are routinely prescribed a polypharmacy regimen, which increases the risk
of a drug-drug interaction. Ultraviolet-A1 phototherapy
is noninvasive and does not require the use of systemic
medications. One issue, however, is that currently UV-A1
therapy is not widely available in the United States.
Herein, we describe a series of 4 patients with NSF
treated successfully with UV-A1 phototherapy. Unlike the
prior case report by Kafi et al,46 the patients were all diagnosed as having ESRD and were undergoing hemodialysis during and after UV-A1 therapy with no change in
their renal status during therapy. Although none had complete resolution, all had notable improvement, with 2
showing a return of joint mobility with considerable quality-of-life improvement. The earliest documented improvement for our series occurred within 3 weeks or 9
treatments, with peak improvement occurring after 41
to 50 treatments. Owing to the rapidity and ease with
which phototherapy can be instituted, we advocate that
UV-A1 phototherapy be considered a potential treatment option for patients with NSF where it is available.
Although promising, our data are limited to a case series. One disadvantage in our case series is the lack of a
scoring system, such as the Rodnan skin scoring system,
for objectively measuring involvement before and after
UV-A1 therapy. Furthermore, quantification of gadolinium with measurement of changes, if any, during therapy
would be of interest in further ascertaining the potential
mechanism of action of UV-A1 phototherapy in NSF. Finally, future investigations should include a controlled
trial comparing the current treatment modalities.
Accepted for Publication: May 31, 2009.
Correspondence: Heidi Jacobe, MD, Department of Dermatology, University of Texas–Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, 5323 Harry Hines Blvd, Dallas, TX 753909069 ([email protected]).
Author Contributions: Dr Jacobe had full access to all
of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the
integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Study concept and design: Tran and Jacobe. Acquisition of data: Tran and Prather. Analysis and interpretation of data: Tran, Cockerell, and Jacobe. Drafting of the
manuscript: Tran, Prather, and Jacobe. Critical revision
of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Tran
and Jacobe. Administrative, technical, and material support: Cockerell and Jacobe. Study supervision: Jacobe. Dermatopathology: Cockerell and Tran.
Financial Disclosure: None reported.
REFERENCES
1. Jiménez SA, Artlett CM, Sandorfi N, et al. Dialysis-associated systemic fibrosis
(nephrogenic fibrosing dermopathy): study of inflammatory cells and transforming growth factor beta1 expression in affected skin. Arthritis Rheum. 2004;
50(8):2660-2666.
2. Mendoza FA, Artlett CM, Sandorfi N, Latinis K, Piera-Velazquez S, Jimenez SA.
(REPRINTED) ARCH DERMATOL/ VOL 145 (NO. 10), OCT 2009
1173
WWW.ARCHDERMATOL.COM
©2009 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.
Downloaded From: http://jamanetwork.com/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/derm/5229/ on 05/08/2017
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
Description of 12 cases of nephrogenic fibrosing dermopathy and review of the
literature. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2006;35(4):238-249.
Swartz RD, Crofford LJ, Phan SH, Ike RW, Su LD. Nephrogenic fibrosing dermopathy: a novel cutaneous fibrosing disorder in patients with renal failure. Am
J Med. 2003;114(7):563-572.
Cassis TB, Jackson JM, Sonnier GB, Callen JP. Nephrogenic fibrosing dermopathy in a patient with acute renal failure never requiring dialysis. Int J Dermatol.
2006;45(1):56-59.
Marckmann P, Skov L, Rossen K, et al. Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: suspected causative role of gadodiamide used for contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2006;17(9):2359-2362.
Marckmann P, Skov L, Rossen K, Heaf JG, Thomsen HS. Case-control study of
gadodiamide-related nephrogenic systemic fibrosis. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2007;
22(11):3174-3178.
Dundová I, Treska V, Simanek V, Michal M. Nephrogenic fibrosing dermopathy:
a case study. Transplant Proc. 2005;37(10):4187-4190.
Schmook T, Budde K, Ulrich C, Neumayer HH, Fritsche L, Stockfleth E. Successful treatment of nephrogenic fibrosing dermopathy in a kidney transplant
recipient with photodynamic therapy. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2005;20(1):
220-222.
Sadowski EA, Bennett LK, Chan MR, et al. Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: risk
factors and incidence estimation. Radiology. 2007;243(1):148-157.
Penfield JG, Reilly RF. Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis risk: is there a difference
between gadolinium-based contrast agents? Semin Dial. 2008;21(2):129134.
Cowper SE. Nephrogenic fibrosing dermopathy: the first 6 years. Curr Opin
Rheumatol. 2003;15(6):785-790.
Cowper SE, Boyer PJ. Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: an update. Curr Rheumatol Rep. 2006;8(2):151-157.
Kucher C, Steere J, Elenitsas R, Siegel DL, Xu X. Nephrogenic fibrosing dermopathy/
nephrogenic systemic fibrosis with diaphragmatic involvement in a patient with
respiratory failure. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2006;54(2)(suppl):S31-S34.
Gibson SE, Farver CF, Prayson RA. Multiorgan involvement in nephrogenic fibrosing dermopathy: an autopsy case and review of the literature. Arch Pathol
Lab Med. 2006;130(2):209-212.
Saenz A, Mandal R, Kradin R, Hedley-Whyte ET. Nephrogenic fibrosing dermopathy with involvement of the dura mater. Virchows Arch. 2006;449(3):389-391.
Maloo M, Abt P, Kashyap R, et al. Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis among liver
transplant recipients: a single institution experience and topic update. Am J
Transplant. 2006;6(9):2212-2217.
Kay-Wiggan JM, Cohen DJ, Hardy MA, et al. Nephrogenic fibrosing dermopathy
(scleromyxedema-like illness of renal disease). J Am Acad Dermatol. 2003;
48(1):55-60.
Jan F, Segal JM, Dyer J, LeBoit P, Siegfried E, Frieden IJ. Nephrogenic fibrosing
dermopathy: two pediatric cases. J Pediatr. 2003;143(5):678-681.
Introcaso CE, Hivnor C, Cowper S, Werth VP. Nephrogenic fibrosing dermopathy/
nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: a case series of nine patients and review of the
literature. Int J Dermatol. 2007;46(5):447-452.
Collidge TA, Thomson PC, Mark PB, et al. Gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging
and nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: retrospective study of a renal replacement
therapy cohort. Radiology. 2007;245(1):168-175.
Richmond H, Zwerner J, Kim Y, Fiorentino D. Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: relationship to gadolinium and response to photopheresis. Arch Dermatol. 2007;
143(8):1025-1030.
Knopp EA, Cowper SE. Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: early recognition and
treatment. Semin Dial. 2008;21(2):123-128.
Gilliet M, Cozzio A, Burg G, Nestle FO. Successful treatment of three cases of
nephrogenic fibrosing dermopathy with extracorporeal photopheresis. Br J
Dermatol. 2005;152(3):531-536.
24. Auron A, Shao L, Warady BA. Nephrogenic fibrosing dermopathy in children. Pediatr Nephrol. 2006;21(9):1307-1311.
25. Läuchli S, Zortea-Caflisch C, Nestle FO, Burg G, Kempf W. Nephrogenic fibrosing dermopathy treated with extracorporeal photopheresis. Dermatology. 2004;
208(3):278-280.
26. Kay J, High WA. Imatinib mesylate treatment of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis.
Arthritis Rheum. 2008;58(8):2543-2548.
27. Hubbard V, Davenport A, Jarmulowicz M, Rustin M. Scleromyxoedema-like changes
in four renal dialysis patients. Br J Dermatol. 2003;148(3):563-568.
28. Ting WW, Stone MS, Madison KC, Kurtz K. Nephrogenic fibrosing dermopathy
with systemic involvement. Arch Dermatol. 2003;139(7):903-906.
29. Lim HW, Honigsmann H, Hawk JLM. Photodermatology. New York, NY: InformaHealthcare USA; 2007.
30. Dawe RS. Ultraviolet A1 phototherapy. Br J Dermatol. 2003;148(4):626-637.
31. Kafi R, Fisher GJ, Quan T, et al. UV-A1 phototherapy improves nephrogenic fibrosing dermopathy. Arch Dermatol. 2004;140(11):1322-1324.
32. Rodnan GP, Lipinski E, Luksick J. Skin thickness and collagen content in progressive systemic sclerosis and localized scleroderma. Arthritis Rheum. 1979;
22(2):130-140.
33. Takehara K, Moroi Y, Nakabayashi Y, Ishibashi Y. Antinuclear antibodies in localized scleroderma. Arthritis Rheum. 1983;26(5):612-616.
34. Scharffetter K, Wlaschek M, Hogg A, et al. UVA irradiation induces collagenase
in human dermal fibroblasts in vitro and in vivo. Arch Dermatol Res. 1991;
283(8):506-511.
35. Petersen MJ, Hansen C, Craig S. Ultraviolet A irradiation stimulates collagenase production in cultured human fibroblasts. J Invest Dermatol. 1992;99(4):440-444.
36. Fisher GJ, Datta S, Wang Z, et al. c-Jun-dependent inhibition of cutaneous procollagen transcription following ultraviolet irradiation is reversed by all-trans retinoic acid. J Clin Invest. 2000;106(5):663-670.
37. McKenna KE, Whittaker S, Rhodes LE, et al; British Photodermatology Group;
UK Skin Lymphoma Group. Evidence-based practice of photopheresis 19872001: a report of a workshop of the British Photodermatology Group and the
U.K. Skin Lymphoma Group. Br J Dermatol. 2006;154(1):7-20.
38. Dawe RS. Ultraviolet A1 phototherapy. Br J Dermatol. 2003;148(8):626-637.
39. Kafi R, Fisher GJ, Quan T, et al. UV-A1 phototherapy improves nephrogenic fibrosing dermopathy. Arch Dermatol. 2004;140(11):1322-1324.
40. Mendoza FA, Artlett CM, Sandorfi N, et al. Description of 12 cases of nephrogenic fibrosing dermopathy and review of the literature. Semin Arthritis Rheum.
2006;35(4):238-249.
41. Rodnan GP, Lipinski E, Luksick J. Skin thickness and collagen content in progressive systemic sclerosis and localized scleroderma. Arthritis Rheum. 1979;
22(2):130-140.
42. Takehara K, Moroi Y, Nakabayashi Y, et al. Antinuclear antibodies in localized
scleroderma. Arthritis Rheum. 1983;26(5):612-616.
43. Scharffetter K, Wlaschek M, Hogg A, et al. UVA irradiation induces collagenase
in human dermal fibroblasts in vitro and in vivo. Arch Dermatol Res. 1991;
283(8):506-511.
44. Petersen MJ, Hansen C, Craig S. Ultraviolet A irradiation stimulates collagenase production in cultured human fibroblasts. J Invest Dermatol. 1992;99(4):440-444.
45. Fisher GJ, Datta S, Wang Z, et al. c-Jun-dependent inhibition of cutaneous procollagen transcription following ultraviolet irradiation is reversed by all-trans retinoic acid. J Clin Invest. 2000;106(5):663-670.
46. Kafi R, Fisher GJ, Quan T, et al. UV-A1 phototherapy improves nephrogenic fibrosing dermopathy. Arch Dermatol. 2004;140(11):1322-1324.
47. Knopp EA. Cowper, SE Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: early recognition and
treatment. Semin Dial. 2008;21(2):123-128.
48. McKenna KE, Whittaker S, Rhodes LE, et al. Evidence-based practice of photopheresis 1987-2001: a report of a workshop of the British Photodermatology Group
and the U.K. Skin Lymphoma Group. Br J Dermatol. 2006;154(1):7-20.
(REPRINTED) ARCH DERMATOL/ VOL 145 (NO. 10), OCT 2009
1174
WWW.ARCHDERMATOL.COM
©2009 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.
Downloaded From: http://jamanetwork.com/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/derm/5229/ on 05/08/2017