Clinical and epidemiologic features of psoriasis patients in an Egyptian medical center.

BACKGROUND: Identification of epidemiologic and phenotypic variations of psoriasis among different ethnic groups can further our understanding of this perplexing disease, aiming at better management of patients worldwide. OBJECTIVE: To provide a descriptive analysis of psoriasis patients registered at Kasr Al-Ainy Psoriasis Unit Disease Registry. METHODS: This retrospective single-center registry study included patient records between November 2015 and November 2018 (2534 patients). Sociodemographic and phenotypic data were analyzed. RESULTS: The mean age of the registered patients was 39.3 years and 56.3% were men. Stress was the main precipitating factor (48.3%), whereas the most common symptom reported was itching (82.4%). The median body mass index was 27.5, and the median percentage of body surface area involved was 10.0. The mean Psoriasis Area Severity Index score was 8.7, and the mean Psoriasis Disability Index score was 13.0. Both parameters correlated positively, and both showed significantly higher means in smokers. LIMITATIONS: Despite that the study was performed at a highly specialized tertiary care center with a high flow of patients, this was still a single-center registry. CONCLUSIONS: This work shows that the characteristics of Egyptian patients with psoriasis are comparable to those of other studied ethnic groups, with minor differences.

Dermoscopic and Immunohistochemical Changes in Acquired Melanocytic Nevi following Narrow-Band Ultraviolet B Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Acquired melanocytic nevi (AMN) have been reported to undergo morphological and dermoscopic changes following exposure to narrow-band ultraviolet B (NB-UVB) radiation. OBJECTIVE: To study the morphological, dermoscopic and immunohistochemical changes in AMN following NB-UVB radiation. METHODS: Suberythemogenic NB-UVB sessions were delivered to 40 patients with AMN. For each patient, a minimum of 2 nevi were selected. One nevus was surgically removed from each patient prior to sessions as control; for the other nevus, dermoscopic images were captured before and after NB-UVB sessions. The images were evaluated for changes. At the end, another nevus was surgically removed for immunohistochemical assessment of Ki-67 and melan-A. RESULTS: Our study showed a statistically significant increase in the size of AMN following NB-UVB radiation. Benign dermoscopic changes were observed. Statistically significant positive correlations were found between some dermoscopic findings and the total cumulative dose of NB-UVB. Immunohistochemical analysis did not show any significant change in the exposed AMN. CONCLUSION: AMN irradiated with repeated suberythemogenic doses of NB-UVB showed benign morphological and dermoscopic changes, and this was confirmed by our immunohistochemical study.

Interventions for acne scars.

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.

Propranolol versus captopril in the treatment of infantile hemangioma (IH): A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Renin-angiotensin system components have been demonstrated in the biology of infantile hemangioma (IH). Captopril, an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, is proposed as a therapeutic alternative to oral propranolol. OBJECTIVES: We sought to compare the benefit of propranolol and captopril in the treatment of IH, and to assess angiotensin-converting enzyme gene polymorphism in patients with IH and in control subjects. METHODS: Thirty patients with IH and 35 healthy control subjects were enrolled in this study. Patients were randomly assigned to treatment with either propranolol or captopril. Assessment was done clinically and by measurement of serum vascular endothelial growth factor and angiotensin II in patients and control subjects. Angiotensin-converting enzyme gene polymorphism was also studied. RESULTS: Clinical improvement was significantly better and faster in the patients treated with propranolol. Both groups showed reduced vascular endothelial growth factor and angiotensin II levels posttreatment, with a significantly higher percentage reduction in the propranolol-treated group. Cardiac side effects were reported only in the captopril-treated group. Baseline vascular endothelial growth factor level was significantly higher, and baseline angiotensin II level was significantly lower, in patients than control subjects. LIMITATIONS: We studied a relatively small number of patients and control subjects. CONCLUSION: Propranolol shows greater benefit than captopril in the treatment of IH.

Bimatoprost versus Mometasone Furoate in the Treatment of Scalp Alopecia Areata: A Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND: Alopecia areata (AA) is an immune-mediated disease that targets anagen hair follicles. Despite various therapeutic options, there is no cure for AA. Prostaglandin analogues have been recognized as being capable of inducing hypertrichosis. OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of bimatoprost to those of corticosteroid in the treatment of scalp AA. METHODS: Thirty adult patients with patchy AA (S1) were included. Two AA patches were randomly assigned to treatment either by mometasone furoate 0.1% cream once daily (area A) or bimatoprost 0.03% solution twice daily (area B) for 3 months. Patients were assessed using the Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) scoring system for hair re-growth. RESULTS: All responding AA patches showed significant reduction in their SALT score after therapy. Area B demonstrated significantly better results regarding rapidity of response in weeks, percentage of hair re-growth and side effects compared to area A. CONCLUSION: Bimatoprost solution represents a therapeutic option for scalp AA.

Propranolol and infantile hemangiomas: different routes of administration, a randomized clinical trial.

UNLABELLED: Oral propranolol has become the treatment of choice of infantile hemangiomas (IH)s. However, the safety of systemic propranolol is questioned. Topical therapy with 1% propranolol has been reported to be safe and effective. Intralesional (IL) administration may possibly allow safe delivery of higher drug dosages. AIM: To assess the efficacy and safety of two locally administered routes of propranolol (topical and IL), in comparison with its systemic oral use in the treatment of IHs. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 45 patients with IHs were randomly divided into 3 groups, A, B and C (n = 15 in each), receiving oral propranolol, 2 mg/kg/day, topical propranolol 1% ointment twice daily, IL propranolol, 1 mg of propranolol hydrochloride in 1 ml of injection once weekly, respectively. Follow up was done for 6 months after treatment was stopped. RESULTS: Excellent response was achieved in 9 patients in group A (60%), 3 in group B (20%) and 2 in group C (13.3%), (P value : 0.04). As regards safety, all 3 modalities proved safe with no major side effects apart from 1 patient in group A and 3 in group C who dropped out due to pain or inconvenience of therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Further work is needed to establish clear guidelines and reach best formulations. Nevertheless, in properly selected patients with IHs, we recommend the usage of oral propranolol. Topically administered propranolol could be considered in patients at risk of potential side effects from oral administration. As IL application did not offer any more benefits, it could not be recommended.

Oral propranolol: an effective, safe treatment for infantile hemangiomas.

Infantile hemangiomas (IH) are the most common childhood tumors. In 2008, Labreze reported the serendipitous effect of oral propranolol on hemangioma and since then it has overshadowed the use of other therapeutic modalities in the treatment of IH. The aim of this prospective, clinical study was to assess the efficacy and safety profile of oral propranolol at a fixed dose of 2 mgkg(-1) in the treatment of 30 patients with problematic IH. Propranolol treatment continued for a duration of 2-14 months where 60% of the patients (n=18) showed a final excellent response with complete resolution of the lesion (P<0.001). 20% (n=6) showed a good response with more than 50% reduction in the size of the IH. 16.6% showed a fair response (n=5) with less than 50% reduction in the size of the IH. Only one patient (3.3%) was resistant to treatment. Five patients (17.24%) showed evidence of rebound growth after cessation of therapy and responded well to re-treatment.We did not face any side effects related to the oral propranolol. In conclusion, propranolol therapy at a fixed dose of 2 mgkg(-1), given in three equally divided doses, is a very safe and effective regimen in the treatment of IH.