Objectives In this study covering all of Turkey, we aimed to define cutaneous and systemic adverse reactions in our patient population after COVID‐19 vaccination with the Sinovac/CoronaVac (inactivated SARS‐CoV‐2) and Pfizer/BioNTech (BNT162b2) vaccines. Methods This prospective, cross‐sectional study included individuals presenting to the dermatology or emergency outpatient clinics of a total of 19 centers after having been vaccinated with the COVID‐19 vaccines. Systemic, local injection site, and non‐local cutaneous reactions after vaccination were identified, and their rates were determined. Results Of the 2290 individuals vaccinated between April 15 and July 15, 2021, 2097 (91.6%) received the CoronaVac vaccine and 183 (8%) BioNTech. Systemic reactions were observed at a rate of 31.0% after the first CoronaVac dose, 31.1% after the second CoronaVac dose, 46.4% after the first BioNTech dose, and 46.2% after the second BioNTech dose. Local injection site reactions were detected at a rate of 35.6% after the first CoronaVac dose, 35.7% after the second CoronaVac dose, 86.9% after the first BioNTech dose, and 94.1% after the second BioNTech dose. A total of 133 non‐local cutaneous reactions were identified after the CoronaVac vaccine (2.9% after the first dose and 3.5% after the second dose), with the most common being urticaria/angioedema, pityriasis rosea, herpes zoster, and maculopapular rash. After BioNTech, 39 non‐local cutaneous reactions were observed to have developed (24.8% after the first dose and 5% after the second dose), and the most common were herpes zoster, delayed large local reaction, pityriasis rosea, and urticaria/angioedema in order of frequency. Existing autoimmune diseases were triggered in 2.1% of the patients vaccinated with CoronaVac and 8.2% of those vaccinated with BioNTech. Conclusions There are no comprehensive data on cutaneous adverse reactions specific to the CoronaVac vaccine. We determined the frequency of adverse reactions from the dermatologist's point of view after CoronaVac and BioNTech vaccination and identified a wide spectrum of non‐local cutaneous reactions. Our data show that CoronaVac is associated with less harmful reactions while BioNTech may result in more serious reactions, such as herpes zoster, anaphylaxis, and triggering of autoimmunity. However, most of these reactions were self‐limiting or required little therapeutic intervention.

BackgroundIn-stent restenosis (ISR) is the major limitation of percutaneous coronary stenting procedure. The elements like nickel, chromate and molybdenum are known to cause contact allergy. Hypersensitivity reaction, against these metal ions, may be one of the reasons of ISR. Cobalt chromium coronary stents, which are increasingly being used in percutaneous coronary interventions, have more nickel amount than the stainless steel stents.ObjectiveWe aimed to investigate the association between nickel hypersensitivity reaction and ISR in patients treated with cobalt chromium coronary stents.MethodsEpicutaneous patch tests for nickel were applied to 31 patients who had undergone elective cobalt chromium coronary stent implantation and had ISR in control angiogram. Thirty patients, without ISR, were included as the control group. Patch test results and other clinical variables were compared.ResultsThere was no statistically significant difference of the mean age, sex, body mass index, rate of hypercholesterolemia, diabetes, hypertension and smoking between the patients with and without ISR. All other lesion characteristics were similar in the 2 groups. According to the patch test results, 7 patients had nickel contact allergy. All of these patients were in the ISR group, which was statistically significant (p<0.006).ConclusionPatients treated with cobalt chromium coronary stents and had ISR were found to have significantly more nickel allergy than the control group. Nickel allergy may play role in restenosis pathophysiology.

Spiny follicular hyperkeratosis (SFH) is follicular flesh-colored hyperkeratotic spicules that are linked to different situations including drug reactions. Previously suspected drugs are BRAF inhibitors and cyclosporine. We described a 51-year-old psoriasis patient with SFH who had been using acitretin.

A 43-year-old male patient presented with two well-demarcated, elevated plaques, measuring 4 cm in diameter, with yellow-black crusts over it that appeared 3 d earlier. With the help of history, physical examination and histopathological features, the patient was diagnosed with iododerma secondary to topical povidone-iodine use. Iododerma develops frequently after oral or intravenous but rarely after topical use of iodine. Its pathogenesis is not well-known though it is widely believed that it is a delayed hypersensitivity reaction.

No abstract