Identification of novel step-up regimen of intralesional triamcinolone acetonide in scalp alopecia areata based on a double-blind randomized controlled trial.

Although intralesional triamcinolone acetonide (TA) is the most commonly prescribed treatment for localized alopecia areata (AA), the literature regarding the optimal concentration for attaining better efficacy with the most acceptable side effects is scarce. To compare hair regrowth and local side effects of various concentrations of intralesional TA in scalp AA using clinical and dermoscopic parameters. A double-blind randomized control trial with four treatment groups (10, 5, 2.5 mg/ml TA and normal saline [NS]) was conducted between March 2018 and August 2019. After recruitment, each AA patch was divided into quadrants and randomized before first injection. Injections were given and outcome parameters were analyzed every 4-weekly till 12-weeks. Statistical analysis was done by the R software employing generalized estimation equation. P-value <.05 was considered significant. Out of 105-patients (168-AA patches), 75-patients (121-patches) completed the study. Hair regrowth scale of all TA concentrations was better than NS group (P < .001). Other parameters such as quadrants with poor clinical response and dermoscopic disease activity signs were also favorable in TA groups in comparison to NS. However the evidence of atrophy and telangiectasia was maximum in 10 mg/mL group. 10 mg/mL TA showed a comparatively better response at the cost of increased adverse effects. Based on the clinical benefit and adverse risk assessment from our study, it may be better to start with 2.5 mg/mL intralesional TA in limited scalp AA patients. It can be implied that the concentration of TA can be increased as a step-up regimen based on the serial clinical and dermoscopic response.

The trend of cutaneous lesions during COVID-19 pandemic: lessons from a meta-analysis and systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Besides predominant respiratory and gastrointestinal manifestations, reports on cutaneous manifestations in COVID-19 patients are being noted increasingly. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the prevalence of cutaneous manifestations in COVID-19 patients. METHODS: This study was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. A detailed literature search was done in PubMed and Embase from December 1, 2019, till May 1, 2020. Studies reporting cutaneous manifestations in COVID-19 patients were included. Irrespective of the heterogeneity of data, a random effects model with inverse-variance approach was used for pooling the prevalence using meta package in R version 3.6.2. RESULTS: Out of 15,143 articles, 2086 articles were selected for full-text read. Forty-three articles were selected for qualitative analysis, of which 10 articles (N = 1682) were included for meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence of overall cutaneous lesions was 5.69 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.87-15.98; I2 88%). The pooled prevalence of other outcome parameters were as follows: viral exanthem-like presentation 4.15 (95% CI: 1.33-12.23; I2 88%), maculopapular rash 3.81 (95% CI: 1.02-13.18; I2 87%), vesiculobullous lesions 1.67 (95% CI: 0.70-3.96; I2 0%). CONCLUSION: The estimated prevalence of cutaneous manifestations in COVID-19 was 5.69%. Other manifestations were urticaria, chilblain-like lesions, livedo reticularis, and finger/toe gangrene. Although it is premature to conclude the prevalence of the cutaneous manifestations during this ongoing pandemic, our report may be a stimulating factor for the physicians to perform further vigilant streamlined reporting of cutaneous manifestations in COVID-19 patients to estimate the final prevalence.

Utility of platelet rich fibrin gel therapy in nonhealing ulcer secondary to ecthyma gangrenosum.

Platelet rich fibrin (PRF) gel is a new second generation platelet concentrate, which has been widely used in various dermatological conditions such as nonhealing diabetic foot ulcers, venous ulcers, and trophic ulcers in leprosy. In this case report, we present a patient with nonhealing ulcer secondary to ecthyma gangrenosum, who showed dramatic response with PRF gel. This case suggests a role of PRF gel in nonhealing ulcers of infectious etiology which has not been described in English language literature. Considering previous literature and our case, it may be concluded that PRF gel may be utilized as an effective alternative for nonhealing ulcers of nonneoplastic etiology.