Summary The diagnosis of Sweet's syndrome (SS) is based on a set of criteria that requires the presence of two major and at least two minor criteria. In some cases, however, the diagnosis is not as straightforward due to the absence of certain criteria. The objective of the present study was to review the clinical, histopathological, and laboratory features of the current diagnostic criteria for SS, and to evaluate their validity in the cases reported in the literature as well as in 40 patients treated at our institution. Our comprehensive review of the current criteria for SS reveals that the two major criteria have been consistently present in all cases – including ours – since the first description of SS in 1964. With regard to the minor criteria, on the other hand, there has been marked variability between different studies, and many cases failed to fulfill the requirement of showing two minor criteria. In order to simplify the diagnosis, avoid misdiagnosis, and allow for prompt treatment, we propose two sets of revised diagnostic criteria for SS. The first set comprises constant clinical and histopathological features that must be present and are by themselves sufficient for the diagnosis of SS to be established. The second set includes variable features whose absence does not warrant ruling out SS.

We propose two sets of diagnostic criteria to define the disease more precisely and to avoid confusion associated with the other classification. The first set comprises constant clinical and histopathological features that are always present in every case, and the second set includes associated features that were variably reported in some patients. LM is then subclassified according to the presence or absence of systemic manifestations into a systemic severe form (scleromyxedema) and a non-disabling, pure cutaneous form.

Summary Background Alopecia areata (AA) is nonscarring patchy area of hair loss. Platelets rich plasma (PRP) promotes development of new hair follicles. Dermoscopy is a diagnostic tool that helps in evaluation of skin microstructures which are not visible to naked eye. Aim To evaluate safety and efficacy of (PRP) vs intralesional corticosteroid (ILCs) in treatment of AA. Patients and methods This study was conducted on 80 patients of both sexes who had AA. Patients were classified into Group I treated by ILCs and group II treated by (PRP). Results were assessed by dermoscopic evaluation and by hair re‐growth score (RGS) at (baseline), 2, 4, 6, 8, and 12 weeks. Patients were followed up for 6 months. Results There was greater hair re‐growth after treatment in both groups. In group I, (26) patients (65%) showed improvement >70% compared to 29 patients (72.5%) in group II. There was significant re‐growth of pigmented hair and decrease in dystrophic hair (P < 0.001) by dermoscopic evaluation in both groups. The difference between both groups was insignificant (P = 0.57). At follow‐up, two (5%) patients in group II had relapse compared to 10 (25%) patients in group I. Conclusion Platelets rich plasma is safe and promising therapeutic option in AA.

PRP injection and topical tretinoin are safe for the treatment of SD, but PRP is more effective and it gives better therapeutic response than tretinoin.

Acne scarring causes cosmetic discomfort, depression, low self‐esteem and reduced quality of life. Microneedling is an established treatment for scars. A multimodality approach to scar treatment is usually necessary to achieve the best cosmetic results. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of platelet rich plasma (PRP) combined with microneedling in comparison with microneedling with non‐cross‐linked hyaluronic acid for the treatment of atrophic acne scars. Forty‐one patients of 20‐40 years of age with atrophic acne scars were included. Microneedling was performed on both halves of the face. Topical application of PRP was given on right half of the face, while the left half of the face was treated with topical application of non‐cross‐linked hyaluronic acid. Four treatment sessions were given at an interval of 1 month consecutively. Goodman's Qualitative scale and the quartile grading scale are used for the final evaluation of results. There was a statistically significant improvement in acne scars after treatment among the studied group. Right and left halves showed 85.4% and 82.9% improvement, So the difference of the improvement between the two modalities is statistically insignificant P > 0.05 We conclude that microneedling has efficacy in the management of atrophic acne scars. It can be combined with either PRP or noncross‐linked hyaluronic acid to enhance the final clinical outcomes in comparison with microneedling alone. The difference between the two modalities is insignificant.