Various adverse effects particularly cutaneous manifestations associated with different COVID‐19 vaccines have been observed in practice. The aim of our study was to evaluate all patients who presented to our tertiary center with skin manifestations following COVID‐19 vaccines injection from September to December 2021. All patients with skin manifestation within 30 days or less following COVID‐19 vaccination were enrolled in our case‐series. All cases included in our study were diagnosed based on clinical and/or histopathological evaluation and all other possible differential diagnoses were ruled out. Twenty‐five individuals including 16 (64%) males and 9 (36%) females with the mean age of 47 ± 17.62 years (range 18–91) were enrolled in our study. Twenty‐two (88%) patients developed lesions after Sinopharm vaccine injection and 3 (12%) cases manifested lesions after the AstraZeneca vaccine. Six (24%) patients developed new‐onset lichen planus (LP) and 1 (4%) patient manifested LP flare‐up. Two (8%) individuals developed psoriasis and 1 (4%) case showed psoriasis exacerbation. One (4%) patient developed new‐onset pemphigus vulgaris (PV) and 1 (4%) case experienced a flare of PV lesions. One (4%) patient manifested pityriasis lichenoides et varioliformis acuta (PLEVA) flare‐up. Other new‐onset cases were as follows: toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) (n = 1, 4%), bullous pemphigoid (BP) (n = 2, 8%), alopecia areata (AA) (n = 2, 8%), pytriasis rosea (n = 1, 4%), herpes zoster (n = 1, 4%), cutaneous small vessel vasculitis (n = 1, 4%), erythema multiform (EM) and urticaria (n = 3, 12%), and morphea (n = 1, 4%). Physicians should be aware of the possible side effects especially cutaneous manifestations associated with COVID‐19 vaccines.

Cases of filler reactions after COVID‐19 vaccination have been reported. Here, we present the first case of delayed‐type reaction (DTR) to non‐hyaluronic acid Polycaprolactone dermal filler after the second dose of Sinopharm COVID‐19 vaccine which was improved with administration of topical and intralesional steroids.

No abstract

Background: Few studies have evaluated patients’ motivations for seeking minimally invasive cosmetic procedures. Objective: This study aimed to assess the demographic characteristics and motivation of patients who seek minimally invasive cosmetic procedures in two academic referral dermatology centers. Methods: The study included adult patients seeking minimally invasive facial cosmetic procedures at two academic dermatology centers in Tehran, Iran, between January 2019 and June 2019. Results: The majority of patients were married, employed women with a mean age of 39.6 ± 10.74 years. The most common region of the face they expected to change was the eyes (56%). Patients who requested fillers desired their cheeks to improve significantly more than patients who requested toxin injections (20.5% vs. 3%; p = .005). Patients had mostly heard about the procedures from friends (40.4%). Approximately one third of patients had experienced a major life event during the preceding year (loss of a family member [50%], marriage [26.9%]). A minority of patients had ever visited a psychiatrist (13.9%), and 15.3% had a history of using psychiatric drugs. The procedure type requested by men was significantly different from that requested by women (88.2% vs. 60.8 % for Botox; 11.8% vs. 34.9% for fillers, and 0% vs. 4.3 % for fat injections; p = .044). The most common motivating factor for patients was gaining rejuvenation (39.2%). The most common preventive factors for patients to undergo the procedures earlier were financial issues (41.7%). Conclusion: Patients seeking minimally invasive cosmetic procedures were married, educated, employed women in their 30s desiring rejuvenation and commonly were not influenced by external factors, such as relationships or the media.

Post-acne erythema (PAE) is a common sequela of acne inflammation, and it refers to telangiectasia and erythematous lesions remaining after the acne treatment. Although some PAE lesions may improve over time, persisting PAE might be esthetically undesirable for patients. The efficacy of various treatment options for PAE has been investigated in many studies but there exists no gold standard treatment modality. In this study, we aimed to give a systematic literature review on various treatment options for PAE, the advantage of each modality, and compare their efficacy, safety, and feasibility. By using the selected keywords, we carried out a systematic search for articles published from the inception to 28 April 2021 in PubMed/Medline and Embase databases. Of the 5796 initially retrieved articles, 18 of them were fully eligible to be enrolled in our study. In this study, we found that light and laser-based devices were the most frequently used treatments for PAE. Generally, pulsed-dye lasers were the most commonly used laser devices for PAE. Neodymium:yttrium aluminum-garnet lasers were the second most commonly used modalities in treating PAE. Topical treatments such as oxymetazoline, tranexamic acid, and brimonidine tartrate are promising treatments in reducing PAE lesions. In our study, no severe side effects were found. In conclusion, both laser devices and topical agents seem to be effective for PAE lesions; however, further randomized clinical trials are needed in this field.

No abstract

No abstract

Summary Multiple dermatofibromas (DFs) are rare benign fibrohistiocytic lesions characterized by asymptomatic hyperpigmented nodules. Several diseases, like systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, are found to be associated with multiple DFs. Here, we designed a systematic review by an electronic search of PubMed and Embase databases to select case reports of multiple DFs (29 May 2021). From 2,145 initially found articles, 96 studies (106 cases) were included. We classified multiple DFs (>1 DF lesion) into four subtypes and separately investigated clinical characteristics of each one: multiple eruptive DFs (MEDFs) (n = 45), multiple (n = 41), multiple clustered DFs (MCDFs) (n = 18), and giant combined (n = 2). The patients’ mean age was 38.3 ± 14.7 years. The majority were female (61.3 %). The lesions were commonly on the trunk and extremities (36.8 %). MEDFs (n = 36) had the most rapid disease onset (2.0 ± 6.6 years). Immunosuppression induced by either HIV (10.3 %) and hematologic malignancy (9.4 %) or immunosuppressive drugs (23.4 %) along with SLE (19.8 %) were the most observed associations. However, 66.7 % of the MCDF patients were otherwise healthy individuals. As for disease management, surgery and follow‐up were the preferred options. Most of the cases showed neither resolution nor development of new lesions in follow‐up.