Background and Objectives: There is a wide diversity of opinions regarding the management of delayed inflammatory reactions (DIRs) secondary to hyaluronic acid (HA)-based fillers. The plethora of approaches has led the authors to conduct a review regarding management and treatment of DIRs as well as establish therapeutic guidelines for this purpose. Materials and Methods: A review of the literature was performed through databases such as PubMed using keywords including HA-fillers and complications, delayed HA filler sequelae and therapy, soft tissue and dermal filler reactions and management. Additionally, a survey comprised of questions regarding the management and treatment of DIRs was sent to 18 physicians highly experienced with soft-tissue filler injections in 10 countries. Their answers and recommendations were analyzed and debated amongst these panelists. Results: Sixteen panelists favored antibiotic therapy as first-line treatment for DIRs, specifically dual antibiotic therapy consisting of a fluoroquinolone along with a tetracycline or macrolide for a period of 3-6 weeks. The majority refrained from the use of intralesional (IL) or systemic steroids except in the case of disfiguring or recalcitrant reactions. IL hyaluronidase was recommended by 13 panelists; however, some preferred a watchful waiting approach for a period of 48 hours to 2 weeks prior to IL hyaluronidase, and in cases where antibiotics did not lead to improvement. Conclusion: A consensus was reached and summarized to propose a clear, easy-to-follow, stepwise algorithm for the treatment of DIRs.

Background: Over the past few decades, soft tissue augmentation is ever-increasing, specifically hyaluronic acid (HA)-based filler injections. As the number of these procedures have risen, so have the adverse reactions. Delayed-type inflammatory reactions (DIRs) secondary to tissue fillers are typically classified according to the time of appearance postprocedure and have various presentations including nodules, abscesses, edema, and discoloration. Currently, the treatment of these complications varies among physicians. Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the knowledge and experience of practitioners in Israel who inject HA-based tissue fillers with respect to the management of lateonset procedural complications. Materials and Methods: A survey regarding management and treatment of late-onset inflammatory reactions was sent to 1120 physicians and dentists in Israel who practice tissue filler injections. Results: Three hundred thirty-four out of the 1120 practitioners replied to the questionnaire. The majority of respondents were dentists (group A) comprising 31% of all respondents. Group B accounted for 31% of injectors and consisted of dermatologists (19%) and plastic surgeons (12%), and group C (38%) accounted for all other practitioners; 48.2% of all injectors indicated that they have not previously encountered a DIR, whereas 11.4% responded that they have encountered more than 5 DIRs. In order to assess treatment management, we presented the injectors with a simulatory case of a woman with a lateonset complication. Most injectors referred the patient to the emergency department. When asked to establish a treatment plan, the majority of practitioners prescribed short-term oral steroids, ie, prednisone (35.3%). A limited number of patients were treated with intralesional hyaluronidase (31.4%) injection as only 34% of injectors kept hyaluronidase at their clinic. Conclusion: The varied approach regarding the management of delayed type reactions to HA-based filler injections, reflected in our study, illustrates the existing ambivalence in the current literature regarding the management and therapy of late-onset complications.

A first C-reactive protein (CRP) test, as often performed by clinicians during the presentation of patients with an acute bacterial infection, might be misleading. The aim of our study was to explore the dynamic between a second CRP test taken within 12 hours from admission CRP test in a cohort of patients diagnosed with acute bacterial infection in comparison to CRP in a control group of apparently healthy individuals. This was a historical cohort study comprised of all patients admitted to the Sourasky Tel-Aviv Medical Center, Israel, between July 2007 and March 2016. The study cohort included adult patients who were diagnosed as having an infection, assumed to be of bacterial etiology (cellulitis and erysipelas, pneumonia, cholecystitis, pyelonephritis, or septicemia), who had a CRP test during the first 6 hours of hospital admission (baseline CRP), and a successive CRP test up to 12 hours from the first one (recurrent CRP). The control group was of healthy subjects who attended our medical center for a routine annual check-up. The study included 950 patients. Baseline CRP ranged from 0.04 to 454 mg/L. The median CRP velocity was 0.53 mg/L/h. Patients were grouped by baseline CRP into 4 groups (CRP < 10, 10–74.9, 75–199.9, ≥200). There was an increase in median CRP velocity between the first (0.48 mg/L/h) and the second (0.93 mg/L/h) groups, which then was decreased in the next 2 groups (0.46 and −2.58 mg/L/h, respectively). In 45 of 103 (44%) patients of the group of baseline CRP concentration less than 10 mg/dL with bacterial diagnosis, there was a complete overlap with CRP values of apparently healthy individuals during their routine annual checkup. A first single low CRP result cannot exclude the presence of a significant bacterial infection. Patients with acute bacterial infection might present with a relatively low CRP value that at times correspond to normal limit CRP concentrations. A second test, obtained within 12 hours of admission, might serve as an important tool to identify patient with an evolving inflammatory burst commonly seen during acute bacterial infection.

No abstract