Background While combined laser and topical treatments are currently a common approach to melasma treatment, data on the efficacy and safety of this combined therapy remain scarce, with studies showing varied results. Objective To compare the efficacy and safety of hydroquinone (HQ) cream alone versus HQ cream combined with 755‐nm picosecond (PS) laser in the treatment of melasma. Method Twenty subjects presenting with mixed‐type melasma were enrolled in the study. All patients were instructed to apply 2% HQ cream to both sides of the face for 4 weeks. Randomly assigned hemifaces of all patients thereafter received 5 biweekly PS laser treatments. Objective (measurement of average melanin content and melanin index) and subjective (grading of modified melasma area and severity index [mMASI] score and global percentage of pigment clearance) assessments of melasma clearance, and occurrence of adverse effects were evaluated at 1‐, 3‐, and 6‐months after the final laser treatment. Results mMASI scores were significantly improved from baseline for both sides (p = 0.006 HQ alone, p < 0.001 HQ + PS laser), with no statistically significant difference when comparing HQ alone versus HQ + PS laser. Objective assessments (measurements of average melanin content and melanin index) of melasma clearance corresponded to the clinical evaluation using mMASI score. Mild postinflammatory hyperpigmentation was observed in 15% of the patients on the laser‐treated side, while no adverse effects were reported on the HQ monotherapy side. Conclusions Adjunctive treatment with a 755‐nm PS laser does not provide additional benefit to topical HQ in the treatment of melasma. http://ClinicalTrail.gov PRS. number: NCT04597203.

Introduction This split-face, double-blind, randomized controlled study investigated the efficacy and safety of using a microneedling radiofrequency (RF) device with polynucleotides (PN) versus RF alone for the treatment of melasma. Methods Thirty adult participants with melasma (Fitzpatrick skin types III–V) received three treatments with an invasive, bipolar, pulsed-type microneedling RF device on both sides of the face. The treatment sessions occurred once every 2 weeks. The hemifaces of each participant were designated for treatment and control with PN and normal saline solution (NSS), applied after treatment with RF. Measurements were made of melanin index (MI), erythema index (EI), skin roughness (by the Antera 3D system), modified melasma area severity index (mMASI) for each hemiface, and patients’ self-assessed improvement. These occurred at baseline and again following the final treatment (2 weeks and 1, 2, 3, and 6 months after). Mean values were obtained for MI, EI, skin roughness, and mMASI. A generalized estimating equation (GEE) was used to compare the obtained values for the outcome measures across all assessment points. Results All patients were women (mean age, 43.2 ± 7.0 years). Mixed melasma predominated (61.5%; n = 16), and the mean duration of melasma was 8.9 ± 6.5 years. Twenty-six participants were followed up to the 6-month assessment point. Significant improvements were observed from baseline in MI, skin roughness, and mMASI scores for both the PN and control sides at 6 months, with no statistically significant differences between sides. Patients’ self-assessed improvement scores also showed a positive trend. Melasma recurrence was observed in three patients at 2, 3, and 4 months after the last treatment session (10% recurrence rate). Conclusions The combination of an invasive, bipolar, pulsed-type microneedling RF with PN is not superior compared with microneedling RF alone in the treatment of melasma. Microneedling RF may be considered as safe and efficacious for the improvement of skin roughness, and as an adjunctive treatment option for melasma. Clinical Trial Registration This study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov and assigned NCT number TCTR20210804002.

Introduction The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has greatly affected medical practices worldwide. Due to the transmissibility of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, the risks and benefits of conducting non-emergent and aesthetic procedures have shifted. This study primarily aimed to investigate the different factors affecting the physician’s decision to conduct dermatologic surgery procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic based on their own vaccination status. Secondly, this study also aimed to determine the level of institutional trust in the respondents’ respective governments and ministries of health. Methods This was a questionnaire-based cross-sectional study conducted from October to December 2021. The survey was electronically distributed to members of the Cyber Conference of Aesthetic Dermatology and Skin Surgery in APAC (CyAsia) and members of dermatological societies across nine countries in Asia. The survey asks the participants’ tendencies to perform procedures based on patient willingness to undergo nasal swabbing prior to the procedure, the type of procedure to be performed (cancer removal vs. filler augmentation), and the type of vaccine received by the physician (inactivated, viral vector, mRNA or protein-based). Results A total of 351 participants completed the questionnaire. Data were analyzed using a conditional logistic regression model according to the participants’ country of origin, specialty, age, level of trust in the national government, and level of trust in their respective health ministries. Tendencies to conduct dermatologic procedures were highest for doctors who received mRNA vaccines and lowest among doctors who received inactivated vaccines. Willingness of the patients to undergo pre-procedure nasal swabbing was also a significant factor in deciding to treat, whereas the type of procedure performed was a non-significant factor. Conclusions This study highlights the important factors that influence the decision to conduct dermatologic procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13555-022-00803-0.