The novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) first surfaced in the Chinese city of Wuhan on 1 December 2019 and quickly turned into a global issue. On 11 March 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared this outbreak a pandemic. 1 COVID-19 can affect different organ systems, probably including the oral mucosa. Although cutaneous involvement has been defined for COVID-19, there are no studies that report oropharyngeal involvement. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first case report of oropharyngeal involvement in COVID-19 describing oral lesions in detail. A 51-year-old male patient was admitted to the hospital with a sore throat. The patient was a family practitioner in contact with COVID-19 infected patient. Our subject's symptoms had started on

Medium-dose UVA1 phototherapy is a highly effective, safe, and well-tolerated therapeutic modality for treatment of all types of LS. A 13MHz ultrasound probe may be used for evaluating UVA1 phototherapy results.

Different cutaneous manifestations of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been reported, some of which are due to the adverse effects of the medications. Favipiravir, a broad spectrum antiviral, effective against RNA viruses including influenza and Ebola, is one of the current medications approved for the treatment of Covid-19. 1 Favipiravir selectively inhibits the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase by acting as a guanine analog. It transforms into active phosphoribosylated form in cells, causing chain termination, slowing viral

Psychosocial effect of pediatric psoriasis was shown to extend beyond the individual, highlighting the importance of addressing patient and caregiver quality of life concerns in an integrated approach.

Contributors FC is the primary physician of the patient discussed in this paper and supervised the process, created the idea, designed the process, reviewed the article, took part in patient care, data collection, literature review, writing and preparation Letter Figure 1 (A) Close view of the petechial rash on the right leg. (B) Bilaterally located petechial rash in the lower extremities.

IntroductionThere are still not enough data showing whether patients with idiopathic hirsutism (IH) also have insulin resistance. The association between polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) and insulin resistance is well documented in the literature, but the Rotterdam Consensus has concluded that principally obese women with PCOS should be screened for the metabolic syndrome. We intended to investigate the presence/absence of insulin resistance in non-obese women with hirsutism.Material and methodsTwenty-eight women with PCOS (14 non-obese and 14 obese), 12 non-obese with IH, and 16 non-obese healthy women were included in the study. The presence of insulin resistance was investigated by using basal insulin levels and the homeostasis model assessment (HOMA) score in the study group.ResultsPatients with obese and nonobese PCOS had significantly (p < 0.05) higher basal insulin levels and HOMA scores than IH and control subjects. Insulin levels and HOMA scores did not differ between obese and non-obese PCOS patients. Patients with IH did not show any difference from the control group.ConclusionsInsulin resistance exists in non-obese women with PCOS as well as obese women with PCOS. The PCOS is associated with insulin resistance independent of obesity. Insulin resistance should be assessed in all hirsute women with PCOS regardless of their body mass index. More studies in larger numbers of patients should be performed to investigate the role of insulin resistance in women with IH.

Background COVID‐19 due to SARS‐CoV‐2 was first described in the city of Wuhan in China and spread around the world turning into a pandemic. COVID‐19 can affect different organ systems, including the oral mucosa. Aims Although cutaneous involvement has been defined in association with COVID‐19, the number of case reports about mucosal involvement by SARS‐CoV‐2 is limited. Hereby, we report a case of hemorrhagic necrosis on the lip in a patient with paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH) and COVID‐19 infection and briefly discuss its possible mechanism. Patients The clinical features and causes of hemorrhagic necrosis on the lip in a woman are presented. Results In our patient, we think that PNH‐associated dermal micro‐occlusions caused extensive painful necrosis of the lip. Additionally, COVID‐19‐induced endothelial damage helped to develop exaggerated hemorrhagic necrosis. Conclusion This current case presentation will contribute to the literature as another case with COVID‐19 triggering mucosal involvement.

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.