Search

Byline: Mohamed. El-Komy, Vanessa. Hafez, Rania. Hay, Dina. Mehaney, Iman. HafezBackground: Normal immune functioning requires sufficient levels of trace elements including zinc and selenium, while elements such as nickel can [...]

Treating atopic dermatitis (AD) is still a challenge. The staphylococcal skin load is known to aggravate AD. Narrow band ultraviolet B (NB-UVB) and glycerol in low concentration (20–40%) are established therapies for AD. NB-UVB has proven antimicrobial actions, while high concentration glycerol (85–100%) showed similar effects in vitro but has not been clinically tested. To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of concentrated glycerol 85% compared to NB-UVB in patients with AD, as assessed by clinical improvement and reduction of staphylococcal colonization of the skin. 30 patients with mild to moderate AD were randomized into either NB-UVB or glycerol 85% group. Patients were treated for one month and followed for an additional month. Swabs were taken from the skin and nose to be cultured on mannitol-salt agar for Staphylococci and quantified to determine Colony Forming Units. Both groups showed statistically insignificant microbial changes and statistically significant clinical improvement after treatment. The results were comparable between both groups. Concentrated glycerol 85% is a cheap effective readily accessible alternative for phototherapy in patients with mild-moderate AD who cannot access the facility. Reduction of staphylococcal skin load seems to be involved, but its role is minimal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Taken all together, these data suggest that the additional inflammatory burden of atherosclerosis in patients with psoriasis may explain the poorer response of cutaneous plaques and circulatory Tregs to PUVA. Evidence is accumulating proving the role of T regulatory cells (Tregs) in both psoriasis and atherosclerosis pathogenesis and treatment.1-3 Psoralen-ultraviolet A (PUVA) remains a standard line of therapy for psoriasis, particularly darker phototypes, whenever the risk-benefit ratio is waived carefully. [Extracted from the article]

Background: Various therapeutic agents have been described for alopecia areata but none is satisfactory. The use of ultraviolet A phototherapy in phototoxic regimens has emerged lately with promising results. Objective: To determine the efficacy and safety of phototoxic regimen of psoralen ultraviolet A (PUVA) in comparison to conventional therapy with intralesional corticosteroids in patients with alopecia areata. Methods: In this randomized controlled clinical trial, 40 patients were randomized to either phototoxic regimen of psoralen ultraviolet A group or potent intralesional corticosteroids group for three months. Study ended at six months. The primary outcome was treatment success: sustained regrowth of hair in ≥80% of the affected areas at six months. Tissue cytokines were assessed at zero and three months. Results: At six months, treatment success was achieved by 45% of patients, similarly in both groups. Tissue cytokine expression correlated well with clinical response. Conclusion: Phototoxic regimen of topical PUVA deserves a place among therapeutic tools used in management of alopecia areata especially in more extensive conditions where intralesional corticosteroids would not be suitable. Trial registration: [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To evaluate the therapeutic efficacy of pioglitazone on psoriasis vulgaris and its comorbidities. Materials and methods: Forty-eight patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis vulgaris were enrolled in this randomized double blinded placebo-controlled trial. Active treatment included: oral pioglitazone 30 mg daily for 10 weeks. Primary outcome (treatment success) was PASI-75. Secondary outcomes included changes in metabolic syndrome, insulin resistance and cardiovascular risk. Results: Treatment success was achieved in 5/24 (21%) in the pioglitazone group compared to 1/24 (4%) in the placebo group; however, this difference was not significant ( p = 0.081). Compared to placebo, no significant difference existed as regards high-sensitive C reactive protein. Metabolic syndrome and insulin resistance were not affected. Conclusions: This short term (10 weeks duration) study revealed no effect of pioglitazone 30 mg daily neither on the clinical response of moderate-to-severe psoriasis nor on metabolic syndrome and insulin resistance. Cardio-protective role appears to be more related to improvement of psoriasis. Limitation: Short duration of treatment and small number of subgroups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Facial freckles are a cosmetic concern to Egyptians, particularly young females. Several therapeutic lines exist with variable response rates and limitations. Fractional carbon dioxide (FCO) laser provides minimal ablation and therefore less down time and less side effects. The efficacy and safety of this laser technology have still not been studied in freckles. The aim of this study is to assess the efficacy and safety of FCO laser in the treatment of unwanted facial freckles in Egyptians. Twenty patients undergone a single session of FCO laser and then were followed up clinically a month later. Photographs were taken before treatment and at follow-up visit and were assessed by three blinded investigators. Percent of global improvement was measured on a 4-point grading scale. Patient's satisfaction and adverse events were recorded. Two patients (10 %) showed grade 1 improvement, while eight patients (40 %) showed grade 2 improvement. Nine patients (45 %) showed grade 3 improvement, and only one patient (5 %) showed grade 4 improvement. FCO laser resurfacing is effective and safe in treatment of facial freckles in skin phototypes II-IV. It can offer a more practical alternative to topical treatments, and a cheaper alternative to Q-switched lasers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Objectives: To build a critical appraisal of the available literature to evaluate the effectiveness of topical calcineurin inhibitors in treatment of atopic dermatitis (AD), in comparison to topical corticosteroids (TCs) and/or placebo. Review methods: Design: systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources: electronic search of MEDLINE Pubmed along the last 10 years (1997–2006). Study selection: randomized control trials of TCIs reporting efficacy outcomes, in comparison to TCs or vehicle (placebo) or both. Data synthesis: of 210 articles, 19 studies were included, 10 for tacrolimus and 9 for pimecrolimus, involving 7378 patients of whom 2771 applied tacrolimus, 1783 applied pimecrolimus, and 2824 were controls. Both drugs were significantly more effective than a vehicle. However, two long-term trials comparing demonstrated the value of pimecrolimus in reduction of flares and steroid-sparing effect after 6 months. Compared to TCs, both 0.1% and 0.03% tacrolimus ointments were as effective as moderate potency TCs, and more effective than a combined steroid regimen. Tacrolimus was more effective than mild TCs. Conclusions: TCIs in AD are more effective than placebo. Although less effective than TCs, pimecrolimus has its value in long-term maintenance and as a steroid-sparing agent in AD, whenever used early enough, at first appearance of erythema and/or itching. In treatment of moderate to severe AD, topical tacrolimus is as effective as moderately potent TCs, and more effective than mild preparations. Chronic AD lesions of the face and flexures are the most justified indication for topical calcineurin inhibitors. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: Acne scarring is a frequent complication of acne and resulting scars may negatively impact on an affected person's psychosocial and physical well-being. Although a wide range of interventions have been proposed, there is a lack of high-quality evidence on treatments for acne scars to better inform patients and their healthcare providers about the most effective and safe methods of managing this condition. This review aimed to examine treatments for atrophic and hypertrophic acne scars, but we have concentrated on facial atrophic scarring., Objectives: To assess the effects of interventions for treating acne scars., Search Methods: We searched the following databases up to November 2015: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library (2015, Issue 10), MEDLINE (from 1946), EMBASE (from 1974), and LILACS (from 1982). We also searched five trials registers, and checked the reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews for further references to randomised controlled trials., Selection Criteria: We include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which allocated participants (whether split-face or parallel arms) to any active intervention (or a combination) for treating acne scars. We excluded studies dealing only or mostly with keloid scars., Data Collection and Analysis: Three review authors independently extracted data from each of the studies included in this review and evaluated the risks of bias. We resolved disagreements by discussion and arbitration supported by a method expert as required. Our primary outcomes were participant-reported scar improvement and any adverse effects serious enough to cause participants to withdraw from the study., Main Results: We included 24 trials with 789 adult participants aged 18 years or older. Twenty trials enrolled men and women, three trials enrolled only women and one trial enrolled only men. We judged eight studies to be at low risk of bias for both sequence generation and allocation concealment. With regard to blinding we judged 17 studies to be at high risk of performance bias, because the participants and dermatologists were not blinded to the treatments administered or received; however, we judged all 24 trials to be at a low risk of detection bias for outcome assessment. We evaluated 14 comparisons of seven interventions and four combinations of interventions. Nine studies provided no usable data on our outcomes and did not contribute further to this review's results.For our outcome 'Participant-reported scar improvement' in one study fractional laser was more effective in producing scar improvement than non-fractional non-ablative laser at week 24 (risk ratio (RR) 4.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25 to 12.84; n = 64; very low-quality evidence); fractional laser showed comparable scar improvement to fractional radiofrequency in one study at week eight (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.68; n = 40; very low-quality evidence) and was comparable to combined chemical peeling with skin needling in a different study at week 48 (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.67; n = 26; very low-quality evidence). In a further study chemical peeling showed comparable scar improvement to combined chemical peeling with skin needling at week 32 (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.75; n = 20; very low-quality evidence). Chemical peeling in one study showed comparable scar improvement to skin needling at week four (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.83; n = 27; very low-quality evidence). In another study, injectable fillers provided better scar improvement compared to placebo at week 24 (RR 1.84, 95% CI 1.31 to 2.59; n = 147 moderate-quality evidence).For our outcome 'Serious adverse effects' in one study chemical peeling was not tolerable in 7/43 (16%) participants (RR 5.45, 95% CI 0.33 to 90.14; n = 58; very low-quality evidence).For our secondary outcome 'Participant-reported short-term adverse events', all participants reported pain in the following studies: in one study comparing fractional laser to non-fractional non-ablative laser (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.06; n = 64; very low-quality evidence); in another study comparing fractional laser to combined peeling plus needling (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.16; n = 25; very low-quality evidence); in a study comparing chemical peeling plus needling to chemical peeling (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.20; n = 20; very low-quality evidence); in a study comparing chemical peeling to skin needling (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.15; n = 27; very low-quality evidence); and also in a study comparing injectable filler and placebo (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.10 to 11.10; n = 147; low-quality evidence).For our outcome 'Investigator-assessed short-term adverse events', fractional laser (6/32) was associated with a reduced risk of hyperpigmentation than non-fractional non-ablative laser (10/32) in one study (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.45; n = 64; very low-quality evidence); chemical peeling was associated with increased risk of hyperpigmentation (6/12) compared to skin needling (0/15) in one study (RR 16.00, 95% CI 0.99 to 258.36; n = 27; low-quality evidence). There was no difference in the reported adverse events with injectable filler (17/97) compared to placebo (13/50) (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.27; n = 147; low-quality evidence)., Authors' Conclusions: There is a lack of high-quality evidence about the effects of different interventions for treating acne scars because of poor methodology, underpowered studies, lack of standardised improvement assessments, and different baseline variables.There is moderate-quality evidence that injectable filler might be effective for treating atrophic acne scars; however, no studies have assessed long-term effects, the longest follow-up being 48 weeks in one study only. Other studies included active comparators, but in the absence of studies that establish efficacy compared to placebo or sham interventions, it is possible that finding no evidence of difference between two active treatments could mean that neither approach works. The results of this review do not provide support for the first-line use of any intervention in the treatment of acne scars.Although our aim was to identify important gaps for further primary research, it might be that placebo and or sham trials are needed to establish whether any of the active treatments produce meaningful patient benefits over the long term.