Investigating the impact of botulinum toxin type a on the migration of normal human dermal fibroblasts: An in vitro wound healing assay.

BACKGROUND: Botulinum toxin A (BoNT-A) is widely utilized in the management of hypertrophic and keloid scars. One proposed mechanism for scar prevention involves the inhibition of fibroblast migration in scars by BoNT-A. However, the data regarding the effect of BoNT-A on the migration of normal human dermal fibroblasts (NHDF) is limited. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate the inhibitory effect of different types and dilutions of BoNT-A on the migration of NHDF. METHODS: In vitro scratch wound assay, NHDF cells were cultured, incubated, and subjected to scratching using a sterile tip. Subsequently, the scratched NHDF monolayer was treated with different types of BoNT-A, including onabotulinumtoxinA (ONA), incobotulinumtoxinA (INCO), prabotulinumtoxinA (PRABO), or letibotulinumtoxinA (LETI), at varying concentrations of 10, 20, 25, 40, 50, and 100 units/milliliter (U/mL). Additionally, abobotulinumtoxinA (ABO) was administered at concentrations of 33, 50, 66, 71, 100, 150, 300, and 500 U/mL. Normal saline solution (NSS) served as a negative control. The extent of NHDF migration was evaluated by comparing each dilution of BoNT-A with the controls using high-content imaging at the 48-h time point. Furthermore, the viability of the of NHDF was assessed. RESULTS: The concentrations of 25, 40, and 50 U/mL of ONA (p < 0.001) and 25 U/mL of LETI (p < 0.05) demonstrated significantly inhibited NHDF migration in comparison to the control group. Conversely, all dilutions of PRABO, INCO, and ABO exhibited comparable NHDF migration to that of the control group. Regarding NHDF viability, no significant decrease was observed across any of the BoNT-A types and dilutions. CONCLUSION: Different types and dilutions of BoNT-A demonstrated variable inhibitory effects on NHDF migration in vitro. The selection of BoNT-A formulation may significantly impact the clinical outcome of scar prevention related to fibroblast migration.

Immunogenicity, Effectiveness, and Safety of COVID-19 Vaccines among Patients with Immune-Mediated Dermatological Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Immunocompromised individuals, primarily attributable to using immunosuppressants, face heightened COVID-19 risks. Despite the proven efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, their impact on patients with immune-mediated dermatological diseases remains unclear. This study aims to thoroughly examine vaccine immunogenicity, effectiveness, and safety in immune-mediated dermatological disease patients. Clinical studies in adults that compared vaccinated immune-mediated dermatological disease patients with vaccinated healthy controls or unvaccinated immune-mediated dermatological disease patients in terms of vaccine immunogenicity, COVID-19 infection, adverse events, or exacerbation of immune-mediated dermatological diseases were searched via electronic databases. Seventeen studies (1,348,690 participants) were included. Seroconversion rates between immune-mediated dermatological disease patients and healthy controls were not different. However, among individuals aged ≤55 years, immune-mediated dermatological disease patients had lower mean anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG levels. Immunosuppressed immune-mediated dermatological disease patients also had lower titres and were less likely to achieve T-cell response. In terms of safety, the risk of adverse events was higher in atopic dermatitis patients, but those with psoriasis had a reduced risk. Additionally, immunosuppressed patients had fewer adverse events. Vaccinated immune-mediated dermatological disease patients had a lower risk of COVID-19 infection than unvaccinated patients but a higher risk than healthy controls; however, disease exacerbation may be induced. In conclusion, immune-mediated dermatological diseases showed a reduced vaccine response in our meta-analysis, yet vaccination remained effective against COVID-19 infection and well tolerated.

Immunogenicity of Intradermal Versus Intramuscular BNT162b2 COVID-19 Booster Vaccine in Patients with Immune-Mediated Dermatologic Diseases: A Non-Inferiority Randomized Controlled Trial.

The intradermal route has emerged as a dose-sparing alternative during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Despite its efficacy in healthy populations, its immunogenicity has not been tested in immune-mediated dermatologic disease (IMDD) patients. This assessor-blinded, randomized-controlled, non-inferiority trial recruited patients with two representative IMDDs (i.e., psoriasis and autoimmune bullous diseases) to vaccinate with fractionated-dose intradermal (fID) or standard intramuscular (sIM) BNT162b2 vaccines as a fourth booster dose under block randomization stratified by age, sex, and their skin diseases. Post-vaccination SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG and interferon-γ responses measured 4 and 12 weeks post-intervention were serological surrogates used for demonstrating treatment effects. Mean differences in log-normalized outcome estimates were calculated with multivariable linear regression adjusting for their baseline values, systemic immunosuppressants used, and prior COVID-19 vaccination history. The non-inferiority margin was set for fID to retain >80% immunogenicity of sIM. With 109 participants included, 53 received fID (all entered an intention-to-treat analysis). The fID demonstrated non-inferiority to sIM in humoral (mean outcome estimates of sIM: 3.3, ΔfID-sIM [mean, 95%CI]: -0.1, -0.3 to 0.0) and cellular (mean outcome estimates of sIM: 3.2, ΔfID-sIM [mean, 95%CI]: 0.1, -0.2 to 0.3) immunogenicity outcomes. Two psoriasis patients from the fID arm (3.8%) developed injection-site Koebner's phenomenon. Fewer fID recipients experienced post-vaccination fever (fID vs. sIM: 1.9% vs. 12.5%, p = 0.027). The overall incidence of disease flare-ups was low without a statistically significant difference between groups. The intradermal BNT162b2 vaccine is a viable booster option for IMDD patients troubled by post-vaccination fever; its role in mitigating the risk of flare-ups remains unclear.

Trichoscopic Features of Syphilitic Alopecia and Alopecia Areata: A Comparative Study.

Background: Syphilitic alopecia (SA) and alopecia areata (AA) are two distinct conditions that frequently present diagnostic difficulties, especially when differentiating between them due to their similar clinical presentations. Trichoscopy may help in differential diagnosis, but a comparison between trichoscopic features of SA and AA is yet to be researched. Objective: To compare trichoscopic features between SA and AA and determine their discriminative values. Methods: Electronic medical records and trichoscopic images of patients diagnosed with SA or AA between January 2000 and February 2022 were retrieved. Trichoscopic features were statistically compared, and their discriminative values were demonstrated as sensitivity, specificity, predictive value, likelihood ratio, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Results: A total of 69 patients were included: 23 SA and 46 AA cases were matched with a 1:2 ratio. Black dots, broken hairs, pigtail hairs, exclamation mark hairs, tapered hairs, angulated hairs, and non-pigmented regrowing hairs were significantly more prevalent in AA than in SA (all P<0.05), whereas erythematous background was more prevalent in SA than in AA patients (P=0.008). Among the aforementioned trichoscopic features, exclamation mark hairs and non-pigmented regrowing hairs had a high positive likelihood ratio for AA (16.17 and 8.34, respectively); however, only exclamation mark hairs revealed high AUC (AUC=0.816). Conclusion: Despite the presence of several similar trichoscopic features between SA and AA, trichoscopy can aid in distinguishing between the two diseases. Exclamation mark hairs are the only trichoscopic feature that can be used to differentiate patients with clinically suspicious SA from those with AA.

Refractory Bullous Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Successfully Treated with Rituximab: A Case Report and Literature Review.

Bullous systemic lupus erythematosus (BSLE) is a rare blistering skin manifestation of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Dapsone is reported to be helpful in mild-to-moderate BSLE cases; however, its use may be limited or prohibited due to particular complications such as drug hypersensitivity, dose-dependent hemolytic anemia, and other significant hematologic abnormalities. Rituximab, an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, has been reported with off-label use in BSLE patients, but data are still limited. Hence, our objective is to explore the efficacy of rituximab among these patients. Herein, we report a 21-year-old Thai woman presented with blistering eruption on the oral cavity, scalp, trunk, and extremities for 1 month. The investigations revealed a positive direct Coomb's test, an elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), and a positive antinuclear antibody (ANA). Skin biopsy showed focal interface dermatitis. Direct immunofluorescence (DIF) illustrated mixed linear and granular deposition of immunoglobulin (Ig)G, IgM, IgA, and C3 along the dermo-epidermal junction (DEJ). Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) showed circulating antibodies to type VII collagen. She was diagnosed with severe BSLE and autoimmune hemolytic anemia (AIHA) refractory to several oral immunosuppressants but was successfully treated with rituximab. The authors also performed a review of the literature on prior BSLE cases managed with rituximab.

Optimal time for COVID-19 vaccination in rituximab-treated dermatologic patients.

Background: By depleting circulating B lymphocytes, rituximab time-dependently suppresses coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines' humoral immunogenicity for a prolonged period. The optimal time to vaccinate rituximab-exposed immune-mediated dermatologic disease (IMDD) patients is currently unclear. Objective: To estimate the vaccination timeframe that equalized the occurrence of humoral immunogenicity outcomes between rituximab-exposed and rituximab-naïve IMDD patients. Methods: This retrospective cohort study recruited rituximab-exposed and age-matched rituximab-naïve subjects tested for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-specific immunity post-vaccination. Baseline clinical and immunological data (i.e., immunoglobulin levels, lymphocyte immunophenotyping) and SARS-CoV-2-specific immunity levels were extracted. The outcomes compared were the percentages of subjects who produced neutralizing antibodies (seroconversion rates, SR) and SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG levels among seroconverters. The outcomes were first analyzed using multiple regressions adjusted for the effects of corticosteroid use, steroid-spearing agents, and pre-vaccination immunological status (i.e., IgM levels, the percentages of the total, naïve, and memory B lymphocytes) to identify rituximab-related immunogenicity outcomes. The rituximab-related outcome differences with a 95% confidence interval (CI) between groups were calculated, starting by including every subject and then narrowing down to those with longer rituximab-to-vaccination intervals (≥3, ≥6, ≥9, ≥12 months). The desirable cut-off performances were <25% outcome inferiority observed among rituximab-exposed subgroups compared to rituximab-naïve subjects, and the positive likelihood ratio (LR+) for the corresponding outcomes ≥2. Findings: Forty-five rituximab-exposed and 90 rituximab-naive subjects were included. The regression analysis demonstrated a negative association between rituximab exposure status and SR but not with SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG levels. Nine-month rituximab-to-vaccination cut-off fulfilled our prespecified diagnostic performance (SR difference between rituximab-exposed and rituximab-naïve group [95%CI]: -2.6 [-23.3, 18.1], LR+: 2.6) and coincided with the repopulation of naïve B lymphocytes in these patients. Conclusions: Nine months of rituximab-to-vaccination interval maximize the immunological benefits of COVID-19 vaccines while avoiding unnecessary delay in vaccination and rituximab treatment for IMDD patients.

A real-world prospective cohort study of immunogenicity and reactogenicity of ChAdOx1-S[recombinant] among patients with immune-mediated dermatological diseases.

BACKGROUND: Immunogenicity and reactogenicity of COVID-19 vaccines have been established in various groups of immunosuppressed patients; however, studies involving patients with immune-mediated dermatological diseases (IMDDs) are scarce. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the influence of IMDDs on the development of SARS-CoV-2-specific immunity and side-effects following ChAdOx1-S[recombinant] vaccination. METHODS: This prospective cohort study included 127 patients with IMDDs and 97 participants without immune-mediated diseases who received ChAdOx1-S[recombinant]. SARS-CoV-2-specific immunity and side-effect profiles were assessed at 1 month postvaccination and compared between groups. Immunological (primary) outcomes were the percentages of participants who tested positive for neutralizing antibodies [seroconversion rate (SR)] and those who developed T-cell-mediated immunity demonstrated by an interferon-γ-releasing assay (IGRA) [positive IGRA rate (+IGRA)]. Reactogenicity-related (secondary) outcomes were the unsolicited adverse reactions and worsening of IMDD activity reflected by the uptitration of immunosuppressants during and within 1 month of vaccination. RESULTS: Overall, the SR for the IMDD group was similar to that of participants without immune-mediated conditions (75·6 vs. 84·5, P = 0·101), whereas + IGRA was lower (72·4 vs. 88·7, P = 0·003). Reactogenicity was similar between groups. No severe adverse reaction was reported. By stratifying the participants in the IMDD group according to individual disease, the immunogenicity of the vaccine was lowest in patients with autoimmune bullous diseases (AIBD) (SR 64·5%, +IGRA 62·9%) and highest in patients with psoriasis (SR 87·7%, +IGRA 80·7%). The reverse trend was found for vaccine-related reactions. Immunosuppressants were uptitrated in 15·8% of cases; 75% of these were patients with AIBD. CONCLUSIONS: Among participants with IMDDs, ChAdOx1-S[recombinant] showed good immunogenicity among patients with psoriasis, but demonstrated lower levels of immunogenicity for patients with AIBD. Some patients, especially patients with AIBD, should be closely monitored as they may require treatment escalation within 1 month postvaccination.

The Efficacy and Safety of Epidermal Growth Factor Combined with Fractional Carbon Dioxide Laser for Acne Scar Treatment: A Split-Face Trial.

Background: Epidermal growth factor (EGF) stimulates collagen production and supports the wound healing process. However, there are no studies on fractional carbon dioxide (CO2) laser combined with EGF for acne scar treatment. Objective: We sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of fractional CO2 laser combined with topical EGF versus fractional CO2 laser alone in the treatment of acne scars. Methods: Twenty-three patients with atrophic acne scars underwent three monthly sessions of randomized split-face application of fractional CO2 laser combined with topical EGF or placebo twice daily for seven days following each laser session. Scar improvement was evaluated at one month and three months posttreatment by two blinded dermatologists and the Antera 3D® skin analysis system. Wound healing response and adverse events were also evaluated. Results: Twenty-one patients completed the trial. According to dermatologist grading and skin analysis system, EGF showed significant superiority at three months posttreatment compared to placebo. The wound healing response did not differ between the groups. Surprisingly, the melanin index on the EGF side showed a significant decrease at three months posttreatment, compared to placebo. There was no allergic reaction to the topical EGF. Conclusion: Treatment with topical EGF after ablative fractional CO2 laser improves the clinical appearance of atrophic acne scars, and EGF may help decrease skin pigmentation after laser treatment. The use of topical EGF is safe when applied to post-laser ablation.

How Microbiomes Affect Skin Aging: The Updated Evidence and Current Perspectives.

The skin has a multifactorial aging process, caused by both intrinsic and extrinsic factors. A major theory of aging involves cellular senescence or apoptosis resulting from oxidative damage as the skin's antioxidant system tends to weaken with age. The human microbiota is a complex ecosystem that is made up of microorganisms (bacteria, fungi, and viruses). Both gut and skin microbiota have essential roles in the protection against invading pathogens, mediating inflammatory conditions, and the modulation of the immune system which is involved in both innate and adaptive immune responses. However, the human microbiome could be changed during the life stage and affected by various perturbations. An alteration of the intestinal bacteria results in "microbial dysbiosis" which is associated with the influence of various diseases, including aging. The skin interactome is a novel integration of the "genome-microbiome-exposome" that plays a significant role in skin aging and skin health. Mitigating the negative impacts of factors influencing the skin interactome should be the future strategy to protect, prevent, and delay skin aging along with preserving healthy skin conditions. This review summarizes the current evidence on how human microbiomes affect skin aging and demonstrates the possible interventions, relating to human microbiomes, to modulate skin health and aging. Probiotics-based products are currently available mainly for the add-on treatment of many dermatologic conditions. However, at this point, there are limited clinical studies on skin anti-aging purposes and more are required as this evolving concept is on the rise and might provide an insight into future therapeutic options.

Epidemiological, Clinical, and Trichoscopic Features of Syphilitic Alopecia: A Retrospective Analysis and Systematic Review.

Background: Syphilitic alopecia (SA), which mimics other types of alopecia, is an uncommon manifestation of secondary syphilis. Trichoscopic features may facilitate its diagnosis. However, studies on SA and its trichoscopic characteristics remain limited. Objective: To investigate the epidemiological, clinical, and trichoscopic findings and laboratory results, treatment, and outcomes of SA in Thai patients as well as to comprehensively summarize all trichoscopic features of SA through a systematic review. Methods: Data on patients diagnosed with SA between December 2010 and December 2021 were obtained from their medical records and analyzed retrospectively. A systematic review of trichoscopic data, both from our institution and from studies registered in the PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase databases, was conducted. A descriptive summarization was performed to comprehensively study the trichoscopic features of SA. Results: Of the 205 patients with secondary syphilis, 23 patients with SA (symptomatic SA: 20, essential SA: 3) were included. The mean age was 27.6 ± 8.8 years, and male predominance was noted. The moth-eaten pattern was the most common SA presentation, and the parieto-occipital scalp was the most commonly affected area. All patients with SA achieved significant hair regrowth within 3 months of antibiotic therapy. Trichoscopic images were available for 20 patients with SA from our institute and were included in the systematic review. Fourteen articles provided information on 21 patients. Overall (N = 41), 26 (63.4%), 8 (19.5%), and 7 (17.1%) patients had moth-eaten alopecia, diffuse alopecia, and mixed alopecia, respectively. The most frequent trichoscopic finding was short regrowing hairs (78%), followed by decreased hair per follicular unit (75.6%), and empty follicles (51.2%). Unique features included flame hairs, bent tapering hairs, reddish-brown background, and brown rings around the perifollicular areas, each described in one case. However, the results were based only on case reports and small case series. Conclusions: Given the progressively increasing frequency of SA, trichoscopic examination may be valuable when SA is suspected in patients with idiopathic alopecia; however, our findings are quite non-specific. The absence of exclamation mark hairs may help in the diagnosis of SA. Further comparative studies on other types of alopecia are required to determine the most useful diagnostic features.

Inactivated COVID-19 Vaccine Induces a Low Humoral Immune Response in a Subset of Dermatological Patients Receiving Immunosuppressants.

Inactivated Sinovac-CoronaVac vaccine (Sinovac Life Sciences, Beijing) for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been used in many countries. However, its immunogenicity profile in immunosuppressed dermatological patients is lacking. This prospective observational case-control study compared the humoral immune response between adult dermatological patients receiving systemic immunosuppressive therapies (n = 14) and those who did not (n = 18); excluding patients with HIV infection, cancer, non-dermatological autoimmune conditions, previous COVID-19 infection, and positive anti-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) IgG prior to vaccination. The subjects were advised to withhold methotrexate for 1 week after each vaccine dose while continuing other therapies unadjusted. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody, surrogate neutralizing antibody (sNAb), and seroconversion rates (calculated from the percentages of participants in the group with positive sNAb) were used to assess immunogenicity. We found that participants using azathioprine, cyclosporin, mycophenolate mofetil, or prednisolone ≥ 10 mg/day had a lower level of serum anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody and sNAb than those received methotrexate ≤ 10 mg/week, prednisolone < 10 mg/day, or biologics (i.e., secukinumab, ixekizumab, omalizumab). Patients who received methotrexate ≤ 10 mg/week, prednisolone < 10 mg/day or the biologics had a similar immunogenicity profile to those without immunosuppressive therapies. Despite the lack of statistical significance, a reduction of humoral immune response was observed among the study participants who used ≥2 immunosuppressants or pemphigus patients. Our findings suggest that a subset of patients with immune-mediated skin conditions respond poorly to the vaccine despite having low-level immunosuppression. These patients could benefit from vaccines that trigger a greater level of immunogenicity or booster doses.