Light-based therapies are one of the most effective and widely used strategies for removal of undesired hair, with a broadly favourable safety profile. However, subjects with pigmented skin are found to be more prone to laser-related adverse events. While prolonged pulse-width and longer treatment duration were proposed to minimize adverse events, the optimal treatment option among available phototherapy modalitieslong-pulsed (Nd:YAG), pulsed diode and alexandrite lasers as well as intense pulsed light (IPL)remains unclear, particularly for skin of colour. To determine superiority in terms of effectiveness and tolerability, we conducted a systematic review of literature on different types of in-office laser and IPL for hair removal in subjects with Fitzpatrick skin types III-VI. The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager (RevMan) version 5.3 and included 12 eligible comparative trials (nine randomized controlled trials and three quasi-randomized). In terms of hair count reduction, pooled effect estimates for long-pulsed ND:YAG laser [OR: 0.26, 95% CI (0.1, 0.78)] and diode laser [standardized mean difference (SMD): À0.11, 95% CI (À0.62, 0.39)] were not statistically significant from those of IPL; in contrast, alexandrite laser was found to be superior to IPL in reducing hair count [SMD: À1.7, 95% CI (À2.6, À0.78)]. In terms of adverse events, the pooled effect estimates favoured long-pulsed Nd:YAG laser to IPL with respect to postinflammatory hyperpigmentation [OR: 0.26, 95% CI: (0.1, 0.78)]. However, both pulsed diode and alexandrite lasers exhibited a comparable safety profile to IPL, despite higher pain scores with lasers.In conclusion, this systematic review suggests that treatment outcomes for different in-office laser devices and IPL in subjects with skin type III-VI are broadly similar; nevertheless, we observed a trend towards greater hair reduction following laser therapy compared with IPL.

No abstract

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is currently receiving the whole world's attention. It appeared first in Wuhan city of China and rapidly spread to the world, causing many mortalities and morbidities; the disease is mainly transmitted via respiratory droplets and has a long infectivity period of about 14 days. Science shows that the virus is also transmitted via the skin if the virus by any means finds its way and land on the skin surface. Infection occurs when touching the face, eyes, or nose with the hand after the virus has landed upon it. This is the main reason for the widespread usage of skin antiseptics and disinfectants. We included the most commonly used skin antiseptics, sterilizing methods, and disinfectants, such as household bleach, hydrogen peroxide gas plasma, Formaldehyde, Glutaraldehyde, Alcohol, Chlorohexidine, Povidone-iodine, Chloroxylenol, and alcohol-based hand sanitizer (e.g. Sterlelium). We will discuss their role in preventing acquired infection of COVID-19, as well as discussing the efficacy, costs, and side effects of different sterilizers, including general health hazards, as well as skin affection as irritant contact dermatitis, which is the commonest side effect. After conducting this work, we summarized the results & started sending them to our patients & medical personnel, and we observed 60% decrease in the cases of disinfectants induced allergic contact dermatitis /month compared to the previous two months.

Background Chemical peelings are used on a wide scale in cosmetic field including melasma treatment. They often provide clinicians with flexibility in tailoring treatments according to patient needs and satisfaction. Objective To evaluate safety and efficacy of chemical peeling as single agents in melasma management in patients with darker skin types. Methods We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective studies that assessed efficacy and safety of chemical peeling as single agents for facial melasma. An online bibliographic search was conducted, and data were extracted from the included studies. Results Ten RCTs and three prospective comparative studies (No. of patients = 478) were included. The overall effect estimate favored Glycolic acid (GA) over trichloroacetic acid peel in terms of melasma activity and severity index (MASI) (mean difference [MD] −1.89, 95% CI [−3.26, −0.52], P = .007). On the other hand, the overall effect estimates did not favor GA over tretinoin (MD 0.53, 95% CI [−0.46, 1.52], P = .3), vitamin C iontophoresis (MD 1.50, 95% CI [−0.50, 3.50], P = .14), and amino fruit acid (MD 0.39, 95% CI [−0.64, 1.42], P = .46) in terms of MASI. The overall effect estimates favored trichloroacetic acid peel (MD −5.30, 95% CI [−6.41, −4.19], P < .001) and Jessner's solution (MD −3.20, 95% CI [−5.35, −1.05], P = .004) over topical hydroquinone in terms of MASI. Conclusion In conclusion, chemical peelings are effective as single agents for management of melasma in patients with darker skin types, with the use of topicals as maintenance treatment.

No abstract