PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

J W Stanfield

Publications and source records attributed to J W Stanfield.

10 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1996

Evaluation of an economical sunlamp that emits a near solar UV power spectrum for conducting photoimmunological and sunscreen immune protection studies.

Expense and inconvenience have restricted the use of the filtered xenon are lamp (solar simulator) as a UV source for conducting large-scale animal studies. Because sunscreen immunoprotective levels are significantly affected by the UV power spectrum of the source it is imperative that a solar simulating source be used for accurate measurements of sunscreen protection levels that are relevant to human LV exposures from sunlight. However, relatively inexpensive sunlamps, e.g. the UVA-340, that emit a UV power spectrum similar to that of a solar simulator are available. Unlike FS-type UVB sunlamps, which have a significant amount of effective immunosuppressive non-solar UV energy at wavelengths below 295 nm, the immunosuppression effectiveness spectrum of UVA-340 sunlamps was nearly identical to that of a solar simulator. The purpose of this study was to evaluate this sunlamp for conducting photoimmunological and sunscreen immune protection studies. Groups of C3H mice were exposed to a range of UVA-340 sunlamp doses (0.25 kJ/m2 to 20.0 kJ/m2) to establish a dose-response curve and determine the minimum immune suppression dose (MISD) for iduction of local-type suppression of contact hypersensitivity (CH). The MISD, defined as the lowest UV dose given to produce approximately 50% suppression of the CH response in mice, was determined to be 1.0 kJ/m2 for UVA-340 sunlamps. Immune protection tests on four marketed sunscreen lotions (sun protection factors [SPF] 4, 8, 15 and 30) were then conducted with UVA-340 sunlamps using MISD as the endpoint. The immune protection factors for these sunscreens were equivalent to the level of protection predicted by their labeled SPF. These results are similar to those we have previously obtained using a solar simulator. We conclude from these data that the immunosuppressive effects of UVA-340 sunlamps are similar to those of a solar simulator; however, further studies are needed to determine if UVA-340, or similar, sunlamps are a viable alternative to the solar simulator for conducting large-scale animal experiments that require a relevant UV solar spectrum.

Adjuvants, Immunologic↗
PubMed1996

Ultraviolet spectral energy differences affect the ability of sunscreen lotions to prevent ultraviolet-radiation-induced immunosuppression.

Acute exposure to UV radiation causes immunosuppression of contact hypersensitivity (CH) responses. Past studies conducted with unfiltered sunlamps emitting nonsolar spectrum UV power (wavelengths below 295 nm) or using excessive UV doses have suggested sunscreens may not prevent UV-induced immunosuppression in mice. This study was thus designed to evaluate critically the effects of different UV energy spectra on the immune protection capacity of sunscreen lotions. Minimum immune suppression doses (MISD), i.e. the lowest UV dose to cause approximately 50% suppression of the CH response to dinitrofluorobenzene in C3H mice, were established for three artificial UV sources. The MISD for each UV source was 0.25 kJ/m2 for unfiltered FS20 sunlamps (FS), 0.90 kJ/m2 for Kodacel-filtered FS20 sunlamps (KFS), which do not emit UV power at wavelengths < 290 nm, and 1.35 kJ/m2 for a 1000 W filtered xenon arc lamp solar simulator. Using MISD as baseline, sunscreens with labeled sun protection factors (SPF) of 4, 8, 15 and 30 were tested with each UV source to establish their relative immune protection factors. The immune protection factor of each sunscreen exceeded its labeled SPF in tests conducted with the solar simulator, which has a UV power spectrum (295-400 nm) similar to that of sunlight. Conversely, sunscreen immune protection factors were significantly less than the labeled SPF in tests conducted with FS and KFS. Comparison of the immunosuppression effectiveness spectra showed that relatively small amounts of nonsolar spectrum UV energy, i.e. UVC (200-290 nm) and/or shorter wavelength UVB (between 290 and 295 nm), produced by FS and KFS contributes significantly to the induction of immunosuppression. For example, 36.3% and 3.5% of the total immunosuppressive UV energy from FS and KFS, respectively, lies below 295 nm. Sunscreen absorption spectra showed that transmission of immunosuppressive UV energy below 295 nm for FS was at least eight-fold higher than that for KFS. Compared to the solar simulator UV spectrum the transmission of nonsolar immunosuppressive UV energy through sunscreens was > 15-fold higher for FS and > or = 1.5-fold higher for KFS. These data demonstrate that relevant evaluations of sunscreen immune protection can only be obtained when tests are conducted with UV sources that produce UV power spectra similar to that of sunlight and UV doses are employed that are based on established MISD.

Animals↗
PubMed1995

Minimum doses of ultraviolet radiation required to induce murine skin edema and immunosuppression are different and depend on the ultraviolet emission spectrum of the source.

Many photo immunological studies have used UV radiation sources that emit nonsolar UV spectral energy and UV doses based on nonimmunological endpoints, e.g. erythema and skin edema. Interpretation of these data has led to misunderstanding when extrapolated to hypothetical effects in humans exposed to solar UV. The purpose of this study was to: (1) establish UV dose response relationships for murine skin edema and immunosuppression, and (2) determine how different UV spectra affect these relationships. Back skin and ear minimum edema doses (MEdD) for Kodacel-filtered FS20 sunlamp UV (290-400 nm) were greater than two-fold higher than those for unfiltered FS20 sunlamp UV (250-400 nm). Xenon are solar simulator UV (295-400 nm) MEdD were > 10-fold higher than those for unfiltered sunlamp UV. Back skin and ear MEdD differed two- to five-fold between C3H/HeN, SWR/J and HRA/Skh-1 mice. The minimum immunosuppression doses (MISD) in C3H mice showed similar UV source spectrum dependence. The solar simulator UV MISD was 5.4- and 1.5-fold higher than for unfiltered and Kodacel-filtered sunlamp UV MISD, respectively. Furthermore, MISD were from 3- to 50-fold higher than the MEdD for the three UV sources. The UV bioeffectiveness spectra indicated that UVC energy (250-290 nm) contributed 12% and 18%, respectively, of the total skin edema and immunosuppression UV energy. These data demonstrate the variability in UV sensitivity among mouse strains, the significant differences between murine MEdD and MISD and how these differences are influenced by nonsolar regions (below 295 nm) of the UV spectrum.

Animals↗
PubMed1991

Double-blind bilateral paired comparison of 0.05% halobetasol propionate cream and its vehicle in patients with chronic atopic dermatitis and other eczematous dermatoses.

Six investigators evaluated 0.05% halobetasol propionate cream and its vehicle in 111 patients with chronic atopic dermatitis and several other eczematous dermatoses. Patients applied treatment twice daily to bilateral lesions for 14 days. Investigators graded pruritus, erythema, scaling, papulation, and lichenification using 4-point severity scales on days 0, 7, and 14. On day 14 patients provided an assessment of efficacy for both treatments. Statistically significant differences favoring halobetasol propionate over the vehicle were seen for all signs and symptoms (p less than 0.001). Substantial improvements were achieved by the active treatment by day 7 (p less than 0.001). Patients assessments of efficacy were significantly higher for halobetasol cream than for vehicle (p less than 0.001). No instances of systemic effects or skin atrophy were reported and adverse experiences were limited to burning or stinging and other minor, nonspecific complaints distributed uniformly between active treatment and vehicle. These results demonstrate that 0.05% halobetasol propionate cream is highly effective in the treatment of atopic dermatitis and other eczematous dermatoses.

Administration, Cutaneous↗
PubMed1989

Ultraviolet A sunscreen evaluations in normal subjects.

We have used a specially modified xenon arc solar simulator to examine ultraviolet A (UVA) protection of a research sunscreen formulation. UVA doses were given to sunscreen-protected and unprotected skin with the use of irradiance values of 50 mW/cm2 and 100 mW/cm2. Erythemal responses were evaluated 5.2 +/- 0.9 hours later and again 24.4 +/- 1.8 hours later. The overall mean unprotected UVA minimal erythema dose (MED) was 23.6 joules/cm2 (SD = 4.8) and the mean UVA protection factor (APF) was 3.2 (SD = 0.78). Neither irradiance nor evaluation time significantly affected MED or APF. These preliminary findings indicate that the modified solar simulator permits convenient determination of sunscreen APF. The APF of a sunscreen is analogous to SPF: APF refers to UVA protection, while SPF refers to protection from the entire solar spectrum, predominantly from the effects of UVB.

Adult↗
PubMed1981

A new technique for evaluating bath oil in the treatment of dry skin.

Patients with moderate-to severe dry skin of the lower legs bathed daily for 17 days using either an emulsified lanolin and mineral oil bath additive (Treatment Group) or their usual bath soap (Control Group). The affected sites were evaluated and photographed before and at selected times following treatment, using a standardized technique. The severity of the dry skin as it appeared in projected color transparencies was evaluated on a 10-point grading scale by a second investigator under blinded conditions. The differential response between treatment and control groups increased with time and was found statistically significant (p less than 0.05), demonstrating the sensitivity of the method as well as the apparent therapeutic effects of the bath additive.

Aged↗