No abstract

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus‐2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) has become a significant health problem globally. The virus has spread widely and become a global pandemic. The pathophysiology for SARS‐CoV‐2 has not been explained clearly. It has been associated with several multiorgan symptoms, among which its dermatological manifestations are of great interest. Primarily, there has been no report of skin features among COVID‐19 patients. Nevertheless, recently there have been several reports regarding COVID‐19 patients who presented with cutaneous manifestations. In the current review, we focus on the various cutaneous manifestations of COVID‐19 infection.

SARS-COV2 vaccines were approved without long-term monitoring due to emergent situations. This has raised some issues about the timing and protocol of receiving vaccines in specific situations such as patients receiving immunomodulatory agents including rituximab, which is widely used for various disorders such as multiple sclerosis, pemphigus, and many rheumatologic disorders. We described two cases of pemphigus vulgaris (a new case and one with flare-up) following vaccination with Astrazeneca in Iran and reviewed the existing data in this regard through searching on PubMed, Google Scholar, and Scopus. All of the relevant papers published until June 28, 2021, which we could access their full-texts were included. We found some recommendations made by rheumatologists, neurologists, and dermatologists in regard to vaccination timing in this group of patients and tried to summarize them to provide a practical guide for clinicians.Clinicians should perform a careful, individualized risk-benefit assessment for their patients and consider a delay in rituximab administration after completion of COVID vaccination if there is not any considerable risk of disease relapse or organ failure. Moreover, choosing vaccines with potential of providing protection after single dose, especially in countries with limited access to vaccines may be a reasonable approach.

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.

Background and Aims COVID‐19 pandemic led to a need to rapidly vaccinate as many people as possible. Children are an important part of the population with different characteristics which vaccinating them is a matter of great importance as it should be decided considering all aspects and ethics. Here, we present different aspects of COVID vaccination in children including the potential challenges. Methods We searched on PubMed, Google Scholar and Scopus in this regard, and all of the relevant papers published until June 28, 2021 were included if we could access their full‐texts. Results We found various expert opinions in this regard and tried to summarized them. Saving lives has similar ethical value as preventing evitable adverse event. Accordingly, mandating the children to receive the SARS‐CoV‐2 vaccine, needs risk‐benefit weighing with special consideration of ethical challenges. Conclusion Considering the vast range of benefits resulted from pediatric vaccination both for the children and the community, implementing the program in a scientific manner and also with the least financial expenses for the families seems to be reasonable and makes it both ethical and moral.

Although the presence of morphea following COVID-19 has been rarely reported, the development of its generalized form following COVID-19 vaccination has not been reported yet. Here, we reported the first case of generalized morphea following COVID-19 vaccination and another similar case following SARS-Cov-2 infection. Other etiologic factors were also dealt with.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) vaccines significantly impacted world health and well‐being. However, various adverse events have been observed following severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) vaccination. Cutaneous reactions have been prevalent following many vaccines, including COVID‐19 vaccines. Here, we present a case of new‐onset lichen planus in a patient who received the COVID‐19 vaccine at the same time as being infected with SARS‐CoV‐2. A 52‐year‐old woman presented to the clinic with extensive pruritic skin lesions. The eruptions had appeared a week after her second dose of the Sinopharm COVID‐19 vaccine. She mentioned a history of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection approximately 10 days following the first dose of her vaccine, causing a 1‐month delay in getting the second dose. Her past medical history was not significant. On examination, erythematous and squamous papules were demonstrated predominantly on the extremities, including inguinal and axillary folds. Moreover, desquamation of the lips was visible, and buccal lesions were also found. After consultation with a dermatologist, a skin biopsy was indicated for the patient, but she refused to undergo the procedure. Therefore, considering the typical appearance of the eruptions, lichen planus was suspected, for which she was treated with oral antihistamines and topical corticosteroids.

Pemphigus is a serious autoimmune disease with few appropriate therapeutic options. Although rituximab (RTX) has recently shown great promise in this regard, the best protocol of its administration is remains to be elucidated. This study aimed to evaluate the patients who need at least 3 cycles of treatment with RTX to identify hard-to-treat patients' characteristics, which might lead to consider more prompt protocols for treatment of them. A retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted on 45 patients with pemphigus vulgaris who received at least 3 cycles of RTX. Their demographic, clinical, and laboratory data as well as details of treatment protocol and final clinical situation of patients were evaluated. Totally, 45 patients (21 men and 24 women) with mean age of 44.33 years were included in this paper.Women were about 8 years older than men (mean age: 48.1 years versus 40.1 years, p: 0.011) and needed RTX approximately 2 years later in their course of disease (gap: 41.04 months vs. 14.85 months, p: 0.003). Buccal, truncal, and scalp regions were the most frequent sites of involvement respectively. A significant decrease in both anti-Dsg1, 3 was seen at last visit compared to baseline. However, the amount of this decrement was not significantly different between them (p: 0.083). Partial remission in 31.11%, complete remission in 24.44%, relapse in 15.56%, partial remission on treatment in 15.56% and complete remission on treatment in 13.33% were seen at the last follow-up session. RTX is an effective medication for PV even in patients with refractory disease and its therapeutic effect is increased with each subsequent cycle. Male gender, severe oral mucosal involvement on disease onset and extensive scalp and truncal lesions as first cutaneous manifestation of disease are more likely to be signs of refractory PV. Hence, it is reasonable to consider more prompt protocols for treatment of these cases. Moreover, late prescription of RTX during the course of disease might play a role in presence of more resistant form of disease.