Search

Paradoxical hypertrichosis (PH) is an uncommon, poorly understood adverse effect associated with laser or intense pulsed light treatment for hair removal. The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine PH prevalence and associated risk factors. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies evaluating hair removal with lasers or intense pulsed light. Primary outcome was PH prevalence. Meta-regression and subgroup analysis were used to investigate associations among treatment modality, patients’ characteristics, and PH. Included were 9733 patients in two randomized controlled trials and 20 cohort studies (three prospective and 17 retrospective). Pooled PH prevalence was 3% (95% confidence interval 1–6; I2 = 97%). Paradoxical hypertrichosis was associated with a face or neck anatomic location, and occurred in only 0.08% of non-facial/neck cases. Treatment modality and interval between treatments had no effect on the PH rate. There were insufficient data to determine the association between sex and skin type to PH. In three out of four studies, PH gradually improved with continued therapy. Based primarily on cohort studies, PH occurs in 3% of patients undergoing hair removal with lasers or intense pulsed light, yet rarely outside the facial/neck areas. Treatment modality does not seem to be a contributing factor. Continuation of treatment in areas with PH may be the most appropriate treatment.

Surgery is the mainstay of treatment for non-melanoma skin cancer. Lasers are an additional option. The objective of this study was to review the literature on the efficacy and safety of lasers for the treatment of non-melanoma skin cancer. A systematic review and meta-analysis of laser treatment for non-melanoma skin cancer was performed. The primary outcome was recurrence rate (RR). The review included 32 studies (six randomized controlled trials and 26 cohort studies): 27 evaluated basal cell carcinomas (BCCs), three squamous cell carcinomas, and two both, for a total of 4755 BCCs and 214 squamous cell carcinoas. Most BCCs were low risk. The Nd:YAG laser (seven studies, 3286 BCCs) had a 3.1% RR (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.4–6.4%) during a mean follow-up of 7.9 years, with a low rate (

Paradoxical hypertrichosis (PH) is an uncommon, poorly understood adverse effect associated with laser or intense pulsed light treatment for hair removal.The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine PH prevalence and associated risk factors.We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies evaluating hair removal with lasers or intense pulsed light. Primary outcome was PH prevalence. Meta-regression and subgroup analysis were used to investigate associations among treatment modality, patients' characteristics, and PH.Included were 9733 patients in two randomized controlled trials and 20 cohort studies (three prospective and 17 retrospective). Pooled PH prevalence was 3% (95% confidence interval 1-6; IBased primarily on cohort studies, PH occurs in 3% of patients undergoing hair removal with lasers or intense pulsed light, yet rarely outside the facial/neck areas. Treatment modality does not seem to be a contributing factor. Continuation of treatment in areas with PH may be the most appropriate treatment.

Bullous pemphigoid (BP) is the most common autoimmune blistering skin disease worldwide. Systemic corticosteroids are considered the mainstay of therapy; however, they may cause significant adverse effects and treatment failures, so additional therapeutic modalities with better safety profiles are required. Rituximab and omalizumab are novel biologic agents administered in recent years for the treatment of BP, yet data regarding their use in the disease are limited. Our objective was to systematically review the current literature regarding the use of rituximab and omalizumab for the treatment of BP to evaluate their safety and efficacy. A systematic review of all publications evaluating patients with BP treated with rituximab or omalizumab was performed. The primary outcome was clinical response; secondary outcomes were adverse events and recurrence rate. The systematic review included 35 publications (84 patients: 62 receiving rituximab and 22 receiving omalizumab). In total, 61 of 63 patients had not experienced disease control with systemic corticosteroids before receiving the biologic treatment. Complete response rates were 85% and 84% for rituximab and omalizumab, respectively. The recurrence rate was considerably lower with rituximab (29%) than with omalizumab (80%). Mean time to recurrence was 10.2 and 3.4 months, and adverse effects occurred in 24% and 20% of the patients, respectively. Available data, although potentially limited because of publication bias, suggest that rituximab and omalizumab have similar safety profiles and provide clinical benefit for patients with BP. The reviewed data indicated that rituximab resulted in lower recurrence rates and a longer time until recurrence than omalizumab.