To verify and compare the therapeutic efficacy and safety of superficial cryotherapy using dimethyl ether and propane (DMEP) mixture vs. microneedling in the treatment of mild scalp alopecia areata (AA). In a prospective randomized single‐blinded clinical trial, 80 patients with clinically evident scalp mild AA were randomly assigned into two groups of 40 patients each. Group (1) was treated by superficial cryotherapy using DMEP in three freeze–thaw cycles of 5 s each. Group (2) was treated by microneedling. Both groups were treated every 2 weeks for 6 sessions and followed up for 3 months after the last session. Patients were assessed by photographic documentation, trichoscopic evaluation, severity of alopecia tool (SALT) score, and alopecia areata symptom impact scale (AASIS). An excellent response was achieved in 15 (37.5%) of group (1) compared with 14 (35%) of group (2) patients, while a good response was achieved in 23 (57.5%) of group (1) compared with 21 (52.5%) of group (1) patients, with a statistically insignificant difference. The mean SALT score change percentage was a statistically significantly higher in group (2) patients. The mean AASIS change percentage was higher in group (1) patients, but this was a statistically insignificant. In both groups, the mean numbers of trichoscopic signs of AA significantly decreased from baseline to the end of follow‐up period. Both therapeutic modalities were well‐tolerated, with no recurrence after the follow‐up period. Both superficial cryotherapy using DMEP mixture, and microneedling are simple, effective, and safe therapeutic options for mild scalp AA, however, microneedling showed higher efficacy.
Introduction. Superficial morphea (SM) is an uncommon entity that was described in the literature without definitive correlation to localized scleroderma (LS) or other atrophoderma diseases. Aim. To demonstrate the clinicopathological features of SM and evaluate the efficacy of different therapeutic modalities in its management. Patients and methods. A total of 28 patients with SM were studied during the period from 2010 to 2015. Clinicopathological features and therapeutic outcomes were recorded and analyzed. Results. Clinically, SM was predominant in females (71.4%) with an average onset at 33 years of age and an average duration of 15 months. It was commonly presented as asymptomatic, darkly pigmented, and multiple and slightly indurated patches. The lesions were mostly ill-defined, large-sized, and located more on the trunk. Histologically, thickening of collagen fibers was observed either localized to the papillary dermis only (38.9%) or extended into the upper reticular dermis (61.1%). Elastic fibers were generally diminished in the upper reticular dermis while the number of fibroblasts and basal melanin pigmentation were increased in the majority of cases (92.9% and 96.4%, respectively). The most commonly associated diseases were diabetes mellitus (50%) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection (42.8%), and their incidence was significantly higher than that in patients with LS. Excimer light showed promising effective results in the treatment of most cases (78.9%) while the response to other modalities such as topical corticosteroid alone or in combination with tacrolimus or treatment with UVA1 alone was less effective (7.1%, 23.1%, and 5%, respectively). Conclusion. Our results proposed that SM is a distinctive clinicopathological variant and not a stage in the spectrum of LS. The novel response of SM to excimer light and not for UVA1 therapy also suggests the different therapeutic outcome of SM from LS. Although SM has a significant association with DM and HCV infection, they seem not to affect the course of the disease.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.