ABSTRACT
Background: The non-cultured epidermal cell suspension method is a well-established but tedious grafting modality in the management of stable vitiligo. Recently a more user-friendly automated epidermal harvesting system has been introduced. Aim: This was a pilot study to compare the efficacy and safety outcomes of the above two grafting procedures. Study design: The study was a single-blinded split-body randomised controlled trial. After scientific and ethical clearance, the trial was registered with CTRI (CTRI/2018/05/014225). Thirty consenting patients of stable vitiligo with 60 near-symmetrical patches were recruited. Block randomisation was done using computer-generated randomisation software and each patch was allocated either of the two grafting modalities. Efficacy was assessed by the Physician Global Assessment Scale on serial images and pain by the Numerical Rating Pain Scale. Results and conclusion: The non-cultured epidermal cell suspension was found to be an overall statistically superior technique to the automated epidermal harvesting system in terms of efficacy (re-pigmentation). Both donor and recipient site complications were significantly less with the automated epidermal harvesting system grafting and this method had the distinct advantage of being a painless and easy technique with minimal recovery time. A novel observation was that a good colour match and near-complete re-pigmentation occurred in patients with a darker skin colour with both techniques. Limitations: The main limitation of our study was the small sample size. Also, the size of the treated patches was limited such that they could be covered by the 5 × 5 cm size of the automated epidermal harvesting system blade. However, a larger area can be covered with multiple sessions.
ABSTRACT
Background and Aims: Biologics are a relatively new class of highly effective drugs in the management of psoriasis. They act on specific immune processes, achieve rapid and sustained clearance and do not cause target organ damage unlike conventional systemic therapy. It appears that their use in our country is not as widespread as in developed nations despite these benefits ; their prohibitive cost may be a major factor for the limited usage. This survey aimed to find out the extent of use and factors hindering usage of biologics for the management of psoriasis by Indian dermatologists. Methods: It was a cross?sectional questionnaire based study. The questionnaire was designed after a focussed group discussion, followed by validation. The survey was sent in the form of a link to Indian dermatologists. The responses were recorded in excel-sheet and the data was analyzed by SPSS ver 25. Results: Of the 310 participants who took part, 287 completed the survey. Two hundred (70%) were users of biologics, while 87 (30%) had never used them. Cost was the major factor which prevented biologic use. Majority of the respondents used biologics in less than 2 cases per month. Secukinumab was the most common biologic used followed by etanercept. The factors which determined choice of biologics were convenience, cost, previous experience, co-morbid conditions and recommendations by an expert. Limitations: A small sample size was the limitation of the study. Dermatologists who do not use biologics may be under?represented in the study. Conclusions: Biologics are not used optimally by Indian dermatologists for management of psoriasis. The cost, fear of adverse effects, lack of awareness and inadequate felt need are major factors which prevent their regular use
ABSTRACT
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has affected every sphere of life including management of psoriasis. The availability of COVID-19 vaccines has given rise to hope and at the same time some apprehensions as well. With the general population becoming eligible for vaccination, there is some confusion, on the eligibility of patients with different medical conditions and patients on immunosuppressive or immunomodulating medications for COVID-19 vaccination. Dermatologists treating psoriasis patients frequently face questions from them, whether they can undergo coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination. A PUBMED search was performed using the following strategy: ‘COVID-19’ AND ‘Vaccine’ AND ‘Psoriasis’. We also performed a PUBMED search using the following strategy: ‘SARS-CoV-2’ AND ‘Vaccine’ AND ‘Psoriasis’. All articles irrespective of language and publication date were included to arrive at this position statement. This position statement deals with the safety, eligibility and modifications of treatment, if needed among psoriasis patients with regards to the coronavirus disease 2019 vaccines currently available in India
ABSTRACT
Psoriasis is a common skin disease that affects 1–3% of the general population. The treatment depends on body surface area involved, quality of life impairment and associated comorbidities. The treatment options include topical therapy, phototherapy, conventional systemic therapy (methotrexate, cyclosporine and acitretin), biologics and oral small molecules (apremilast and tofacitinib). Despite the availability of newer therapies such as biologics and oral small molecules, many a time, there is a paucity of treatment options due to the chronic nature of the disease, end-organ toxicity of the conventional drugs or high cost of newer drugs. In these scenarios, unconventional treatment options may be utilized as stand-alone or adjuvant therapy. In this review, we have discussed these uncommonly used treatment options in the management of psoriasis.
ABSTRACT
Background: Melasma is the commonest cause of facial hypermelanosis in skin type IV-VI. First-line treatment includes a triple combination containing topical corticosteroid and hydroquinone which have side effects on prolonged use. Chemical peels are a second-line management option with the laser being used in refractory cases, but the worsening of hyperpigmentation in darker skin types can occur following laser therapy. Sunscreen is a must to prevent relapses. Aims and Objectives: (i) To compare the effects of treatment with a proprietary combination (phenyl ethyl resorcinol, nonapeptide-1, aminoethyl phosphinic acid, antioxidants and sunscreen) versus sunscreen alone in limiting or reducing, melasma and preventing recurrence as a maintenance regimen after the initial use of triple combination,(ii) to evaluate the safety of the formulation studied, and (iii) to study the improvement of the quality of life of the patients after using the study formulation versus placebo. Methods: It was a prospective double-blinded parallel-group randomized controlled pilot study. A total of 46 subjects were recruited by consecutive sampling methods and randomized to 23 each in case and control groups. The study period was eight months with three phases. Phase 1 constituted the application of triple combination for eight weeks by both groups followed by phase 2 with the case group applying proprietary medicine and the control group applying sunscreen. Phase 3 was a follow-up period to see the sustenance of results in both groups as well as any evidence of relapses. Sunscreen was applied in all three phases. Results: Case group in the study showed improvement in the melasma severity score and mean melanin index as measured by mexameter but it did not attain statistical significance as compared to the control group. The melasma area and severity index score showed a consistent reduction in the case group, whereas it increased in the control group from baseline. Limitations: Small sample size and a short follow-up period of our study were major limitations. Conclusion: The proprietary combination, which has sunscreen as one of its constituents, is more effective in maintaining remission after triple combination without any added inconvenience of application of two separate preparations as compared to sunscreen alone
ABSTRACT
Livedoid vasculopathy is a rare cutaneous disease manifesting as recurrent ulcers on the lower extremities. The ulceration results in atrophic, porcelain white scars termed as atrophie blanche. The pathogenesis is yet to be understood with the main mechanism being hypercoagulability and infl ammation playing a secondary role. The important procoagulant factors include protein C and S defi ciency, factor V Leiden mutation, antithrombin III defi ciency, prothrombin gene mutation and hyperhomocysteinemia. Histopathology of livedoid vasculopathy is characterized by intraluminal thrombosis, proliferation of the endothelium and segmental hyalinization of dermal vessels. The treatment is multipronged with anti-thrombotic measures such as anti-platelet drugs, systemic anticoagulants and fi brinolytic therapy taking precedence over anti-infl ammatory agents. Colchicine, hydroxychloroquine, vasodilators, intravenous immunoglobulin, folic acid, immunosuppressive therapy and supportive measures are also of some benefi t. A multidisciplinary approach would go a long way in the management of these patients resulting in relief from pain and physical as well as psychological scarring.