Objective To assess the efficacy and safety of topical 5% cysteamine versus 4% hydroquinone in the treatment of facial melasma in women. Topical 5% cysteamine is an antioxidant and tyrosinase inhibitor that has been shown to be effective in the treatment of melasma. However, to date, no study has compared the performance of topical cysteamine to hydroquinone for facial melasma. Methods A quasi-randomized, multicenter, evaluator-blinded clinical trial was conducted on 40 women with facial melasma who were submitted to the nightly application of 5% cysteamine (CYS) or 4% hydroquinone (HQ) on hyperpigmented areas for 120 days. Both groups were required to use tinted sunscreen (SPF 50; PPD 19). Subjects were assessed at the inclusion and after 60 and 120 days of treatment for mMASI, MELASQoL, and the difference in colorimetric luminosity between melasma and the adjacent unaffected skin. The Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale was used to assess the difference in the appearance of the skin through standardized photographs. Results The mean reduction of the mMASI scores was 24% for CYS and 41% for HQ (P = 0.015) at 60 days, and 38% for CYS and 53% for HQ (P = 0.017) at 120 days. The photographic evaluation revealed up to 74% improvement for both groups, without statistically significant difference between them (P = 0.087). The MELASQoL score showed a progressive decrease for both groups over time, despite the greater reduction for HQ after 120 days (P = 0.018). Colorimetric assessment disclosed progressive depigmenting in both groups, without statistically significant difference between them (P > 0.160). No severe adverse effects were identified in either group. Erythema and burning were the most important local adverse effects with cysteamine, although their frequency did not differ between groups (P > 0.170). Conclusion Cysteamine proved to be safe, well-tolerated, and effective, despite its inferior performance to hydroquinone in decreasing mMASI and MELASQoL in the treatment of melasma.

No abstract

No abstract

Background Melasma can be refractory to treatment, and relapses are frequent. Thiamidol is a new potent tyrosinase inhibitor that has been found effective as a cosmeceutical for the depigmenting of melasma.Objective This study compared the efficacy and tolerability of topical 0.2% Thiamidol vs. 4% hydroquinone for facial melasma.Methods Fifty women with facial melasma participated in a randomized, evaluator-blinded, controlled study from September through November 2020. Patients were randomly assigned to apply a double layer of 0.2% Thiamidol twice a day or 4% hydroquinone cream at bedtime, for 90 days. Both groups received tinted sunscreen (sun protection factor 60, PPD 20). The primary outcome was the change from the baseline Modified Melasma Area Seve:rity Index (mMASI) score. Secondary outcomes were improvements in the patients' quality of life [Melasma Quality of Life Index (MELAS-QoL)], colourimetry, and Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS) evaluation.Results One participant, from the hydroquinone group, did not complete the study (unrelated to adverse effects). The mean (SD) age of the participants was 43 (6) years, and 86% were phototypes III-IV. Both groups exhibited a reduction in mMASI, MELASQoL, and colour contrast scores (P < 0.01). The mean [95% confidence interval (CI 95%)] reductions of the mMASI scores were 43% (35-50%) for Thiamidol and 33% (23-42%) for hydroquinone. There was no difference between the groups in the reductions in mMASI, MELASQoL, colourimetric contrast and GAIS scores (P ≥ 0.09). The GAIS analysis resulted in an improvement of 84% (CI: 95% 67-97%) for participants in the Thiamidol group and 74% (CI: 95% 61-93%) for those in the hydroquinone group. There were only mild adverse effects in the Thiamidol group, but allergic contact dermatitis was evidenced in two (8%) participants. ConclusionThe melasma improvement achieved using 0.2% Thiamidol did not differ from that of 4% hydroquinone cream. Thiamidol can be considered a suitable option for melasma patients with poor tolerability or treatment failure with hydroquinone.

Melasma is a multifactorial dyschromia that results from exposure to external factors (such as solar radiation) and hormonal factors (such as sex hormones and pregnancy), as well as skin inflammation (such as contact dermatitis and esthetic procedures), in genetically predisposed individuals. Beyond hyperfunctional melanocytes, skin with melasma exhibits a series of structural and functional alterations in the epidermis, basement membrane, and upper dermis that interact to elicit and sustain a focal hypermelanogenic phenotype. Evolution in the knowledge of the genetic basis of melasma and the cutaneous response to solar radiation, as well as the roles of endocrine factors, antioxidant system, endothelium proliferation, fibroblast senescence, mast cell degranulation, autophagy deficits of the melanocyte, and the paracrine regulation of melanogenesis, will lead to the development of new treatments and preventive strategies. This review presents current knowledge on these aspects of the pathogenesis of melasma and discusses the effects of specific treatments and future research on these issues.

Melasma is a prevalent chronic relapsing pigmentary disorder that affects photoexposed areas, especially in women of childbearing age. Although there is currently no curative treatment available for melasma, this manuscript critically reviews the knowledge regarding photoprotection, topical and oral therapies, and procedures such as peelings, laser, and microneedling that represent the main strategies for control and prevention of this disease. As the pathogenesis of melasma is not entirely understood, there are prospects for the development of new therapeutic strategies that might act on the pathways that promote sustained pigmentation rather than merely decreasing melanin synthesis and removing melanin from the epidermis.

Vascular compromise is a rare but serious complication of dermal filler injection.Vessel occlusion tends to have a more immediate onset of symptoms. We report a case of skin necrosis that started with pain, erythema and edema two days after hyaluronic acid filler on the forehead of a 57-year-old woman. The patient was treated with less than 24 hours the onset of symptoms, leaving discreet scar. The current theories that explain skin necrosis caused by HA fillers include angiospasm and embolization. The frontal region has many anastomoses, the embolized proximal vessel initially did not lead to symptoms. However, the HA inside the artery may have traveled over time and reached a terminal distal branch, which generated localized skin damage and pain. The urgent treatment of arterial occlusion and thromboembolism caused by HA injection is intralesional high-dose hyaluronidase. K E Y W O R D Scomplications, hyaluronic acid, skin necrosis | 583 CASSIANO et Al. | C A S E REP ORTA 57-year-old woman with no comorbidities was treated with Restylane Vital® (Galderma) in June 2019 for rejuvenation of the frontal region.The procedure was performed with a 25G cannula, and 0.5 mL of HA was injected into each side in the sub-SMAS plane without complications. At the end of the procedure, the patient was released without complaints and with care instructions. However, two days after the filler injection, the patient developed pain, erythema, and edema in the frontal region. Less than 24 hours after the onset of symptoms, the patient presented with erythema, edema, and pustules in the frontal region ( Figure 1), with the diagnostic hypothesis of vascular obstruction.Hyaluronidase (200 TRU) was injected throughout the treated region, which led to immediate pain relief; the patient was also prescribed 500 mg ASA for 3 days and 40 mg prednisolone for 3 days, which was combined with local heat application. The patient's condition improved and progressed with minimal scarring (Figure 2). How to cite this article: Cassiano D, Miyuki Iida T, LúciaRecio A, Yarak S. Delayed skin necrosis following hyaluronic acid filler injection: A case report. J Cosmet Dermatol.

Sun exposure (UVB, UVA, and blue-violet visible light) in ordinary daily situations Dear Editor, Solar radiation is essential to human life; in addition to promoting warmth and well-being, it interacts with biological tissues causing metabolic changes, oxidative stress, and deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) mutation. Different wavelengths elicit specific effects in the skin, such as sunburn, erythema, vitamin D synthesis, carcinogenesis, immunosuppression, photoaging, modulation of skin microbioma, and melanogenesis. 1,2The intensity of solar radiation that reaches the skin varies with altitude, latitude, the season of the year, reflective surfaces (e.g., water, grass, or snow), shadow, clothing, sunscreen use, length of exposure, and the time of day. Furthermore, the biological effect of sun exposure in the skin differs individually according to melanin pigmentation, genetic predisposition (e.g., the ability to repair DNA), photosensitizing drugs, antioxidant capacity, and skin disorders that are influenced by solar radiation. [3][4][5][6]