During day-to-day wearing of surgical masks, especially in the time of the COVID-19 pandemic, vision is hampered for health care workers who wear glasses due to fogging (Fig 1, A). Although there are various measures, such as hydrogel patches, that can be used to prevent fogging, 1 they may not be available or affordable in resource-poor settings.

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.

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.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

COVID vaccines against the SARS-CoV2 infection helped in reducing the devastating effects of the COVID pandemic. Many studies have portrayed the efficacy and safety of vaccines, there are people who are hesitant to get vaccines due to the fear of side effects and the fear is especially high in patients with autoimmune disorders on systemic immunosuppressant possibly due to lack of awareness and proper counselling. Thus, we intended to study the perceived risks and perceptions of COVID–19 vaccination in patients with autoimmune skin diseases attending a tertiary care centre in India.This is a cross sectional study done in the Department of Dermatology, The study participant who fulfilled the inclusion and the exclusion criteria were included in this study. COVID vaccination details were obtained from 50 patients with autoimmune skin disorders attending the skin OPD.Age of the patient ranged from 18 – 70 years in which 45-60 years of the age group were predominant [18(36%)]. The most common autoimmune disease among the study participants was Psoriasis vulgaris 24(48%). Patients taking immunosuppressant were about 20 (40%) study participants. About 72% were vaccinated for COVID-19.72% of study population got vaccinated and the common reason is due to its free of cost in our country followed by confidence in its efficacy. The rest hesitated due to their personal superstitious beliefs and their ignorance. Overall, during the study period, no major adverse effects related to the vaccine were noted in our study participants.