Background Generalized pustular psoriasis (GPP) is a rare and severe inflammatory disease characterized by widespread and superficial sterile pustules on an erythematous background. Objectives This multicentre study aimed to determine the clinical profile and course in a large cohort of patients with GPP. Methods One hundred and fifty‐six GPP patients (mean age, 44.2 ± 18.7 years) who met the diagnostic criteria of the European Consensus Report of GPP were included in the study. Sociodemographic characteristics, quality of life, triggering factors of the disease, clinical, laboratory, treatment and prognostic features were evaluated. Results 61.5% of the patients were female. The rate of working at or below the minimum wage (≤$332.5/month) was 44.9%. Drugs (36.5%) were the most common trigger. While hypocalcaemia (35.7%) was the most important cause of GPP during pregnancy, systemic steroid withdrawal (20%) was the most frequently reported trigger for infantile/juvenile and mixed‐type GPP (15%) (P < 0.05). Acute GPP (53.8%) was the most common clinic. Nails were affected in 43.6% of patients, and subungual yellow spots (28.2%) were the most common change. In annular GPP, fever (P < 0.001) and relapse frequency (P = 0.006) were lower than other subtypes, and the number of hospitalizations (P = 0.002) was lower than acute GPP. GPP appeared at a later age in those with a history of psoriasis (P = 0.045). DLQI score (P = 0.049) and joint involvement (P = 0.016) were also higher in this group. Infantile/juvenile GPP was observed in 16.02% of all patients, and arthritis was lower in this group (24.4 vs. 16%). GPP of pregnancy had the worst prognosis due to abortion observed in three patients. Conclusions Recent advances in treatment have improved mortality associated with GPP, but abortion remains a significant complication. Although TNF‐α inhibitors have proven efficacy in GPP, they can also trigger the disease. Mixed‐type GPP is more similar to acute GPP than annular GPP with systemic manifestations and course.

Objectives In this study covering all of Turkey, we aimed to define cutaneous and systemic adverse reactions in our patient population after COVID‐19 vaccination with the Sinovac/CoronaVac (inactivated SARS‐CoV‐2) and Pfizer/BioNTech (BNT162b2) vaccines. Methods This prospective, cross‐sectional study included individuals presenting to the dermatology or emergency outpatient clinics of a total of 19 centers after having been vaccinated with the COVID‐19 vaccines. Systemic, local injection site, and non‐local cutaneous reactions after vaccination were identified, and their rates were determined. Results Of the 2290 individuals vaccinated between April 15 and July 15, 2021, 2097 (91.6%) received the CoronaVac vaccine and 183 (8%) BioNTech. Systemic reactions were observed at a rate of 31.0% after the first CoronaVac dose, 31.1% after the second CoronaVac dose, 46.4% after the first BioNTech dose, and 46.2% after the second BioNTech dose. Local injection site reactions were detected at a rate of 35.6% after the first CoronaVac dose, 35.7% after the second CoronaVac dose, 86.9% after the first BioNTech dose, and 94.1% after the second BioNTech dose. A total of 133 non‐local cutaneous reactions were identified after the CoronaVac vaccine (2.9% after the first dose and 3.5% after the second dose), with the most common being urticaria/angioedema, pityriasis rosea, herpes zoster, and maculopapular rash. After BioNTech, 39 non‐local cutaneous reactions were observed to have developed (24.8% after the first dose and 5% after the second dose), and the most common were herpes zoster, delayed large local reaction, pityriasis rosea, and urticaria/angioedema in order of frequency. Existing autoimmune diseases were triggered in 2.1% of the patients vaccinated with CoronaVac and 8.2% of those vaccinated with BioNTech. Conclusions There are no comprehensive data on cutaneous adverse reactions specific to the CoronaVac vaccine. We determined the frequency of adverse reactions from the dermatologist's point of view after CoronaVac and BioNTech vaccination and identified a wide spectrum of non‐local cutaneous reactions. Our data show that CoronaVac is associated with less harmful reactions while BioNTech may result in more serious reactions, such as herpes zoster, anaphylaxis, and triggering of autoimmunity. However, most of these reactions were self‐limiting or required little therapeutic intervention.

Route of exposure, severity of symptoms, and the necessary treatment differs substantially between unintentional and intentional poisonings. In this study, two initially symptomatic intentional poisonings were later reported fatal. Careful monitoring is recommended in symptomatic intentional poisonings.

No abstract

Purpose This study aimed to investigate the relationship between skin parameters and CAD. Materials and Methods The study included 50 patients diagnosed with coronary artery disease as the patient group and 45 volunteers without any known coronary artery disease as the control group. The participants' skin TEWL, pH, temperature, electrical capacitance, sebum, and elasticity values were measured using noninvasive methods at the forehead, back, and forearm. Findings Skin temperature was significantly higher in the back and forehead regions in the patient group. No difference was found between the sebum values of the patient and control groups at the back and forehead. A significantly higher result was obtained for the forearm area. The pH was significantly lower in the patients' forearm, although the obtained values were within the normal range. The TEWL was significantly higher in patients in all three regions. In terms of flexibility, R2 was significantly higher in the back and forehead regions of the patient group, and the R6 was significantly higher in the patient group in all three regions. In addition, there was no correlation between skin parameter and SYNTAX score increase measurements. Conclusion It can be suggested that skin sebum and TEWL measurements can be accepted as cheap and noninvasive methods of predicting CAD.