Background COVID‐19 had a great impact on medical approaches among dermatologist Objective This systematic review focuses on all skin problems related to COVID‐19, including primary and secondary COVID‐related cutaneous presentations and the experts recommendations about dermatological managements especially immunomodulators usage issues Method Search was performed on PubMed, Scopus, Embase and ScienceDirect. Other additional resources were searched included Cochrane, WHO, Medscape and coronavirus dermatology resource of Nottingham university. The search completed on May/03/2020. 377 articles assigned to the inclusion and exclusion groups Result Eighty‐nine articles entered the review. Primary mucocutaneous and appendageal presentations could be the initial or evolving signs of COVID‐19. It could be manifest most commonly as a maculopapular exanthamatous or morbiliform eruption, generalized urticaria or pseudo chilblains recognized as “COVID toes” (pernio‐like acral lesions or vasculopathic rashes). Conclusion: During pandemic, Non‐infected non‐at risk patients with immune‐medicated dermatologic disorders under treatment with immunosuppressive immunomodulators are not needed to alter their regimen or discontinue the therapies. At‐risk and infection‐suspected patients needed to dose reduction, interval increase or temporary drug discontinuation (at least 2 weeks). Patients with an active COVID‐19 infection should hold the biologic or non‐biologic immunosuppressives until the complete recovery occur (at least 4 weeks). This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Striae distensae (SD) or stretch marks are among the most common forms of atrophic scarring and cosmetic problems, especially in women, that negatively affect quality of life. The main causes of SD vary widely, but the most significant ones include obesity, pregnancy, high corticosteroid levels, weight changes, endocrine disorders and genetic predispositions. Various modalities are available for the treatment of SD; however, there is still no gold standard therapy for this condition. Given the many questions concerning the preferred therapeutic modalities for SD or their overall costeffectiveness, this comprehensive systematic review discusses the most prevalent, recent and promising therapies for SD in three main categories, including single therapy, therapeutic comparisons and combination therapy. A systematic search was carried out in Medline, Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar for original articles published on the treatment of SD by 20 May 2019. One hundred articles were reviewed and divided into three categories. In the single therapy category, we found that laser and other light-based devices and topical treatments are the most commonly applied interventions. In the therapeutic comparison category, we found that most of the common therapeutic modalities are equally effective and there is no significant difference between them in side-effects and treatment duration. In the combination therapy category, we found that the combination of two or more modalities is usually better than using each one alone.

Background: Idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH) encompasses patients with elevated intracranial pressure (ICP). Generally, it is difficult to make a differential diagnosis between IIH and co-existing migraine headaches. Thus, this article intends to estimate the prevalence of migraine in patients with IIH and explain the occurrence of new-onset migraine after the diagnosis of IIH.  Methods: The case group included 108 patients with IIH referred to the neurology wards of three university hospitals. A random sample of controls (n = 103) were recruited from patients hospitalized in the surgery and orthopedics ward. A checklist for migraine diagnosis was filled out. Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) pressure and presence or absence of papilloedema (PE) in the patients and any necessary data were also recorded from the inpatient medical documents. All statistical analyses were done by SPSS software. Results: There were 70 (64.80%) and 22 (21.40%) migraineurs in the case and control groups, respectively, and the difference was found to be  significant (P < 0.001). In 26 (37.14%) migraine cases in the IIH group, the disorder was diagnosed after developing IIH. Also, there was a past medical history of having migraine in 44 (62.85%) migraineurs. In the fully adjusted regression models, the odds of being affected by migraine in patients with IIH was 6.17 times greater than the controls [odds ratio (OR) = 7.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 3.56-14.36, P < 0.010]. The patients’ mean CSF opening pressure was 32.10 ± 1.03 cmH2O and 93 (81.60%) subjects were found to have PE. Conclusion: It was demonstrated that subjects with IIH might have about a 6-time higher likelihood of developing migraine headache than the general population. These considerations can help prevent misdiagnosis of migraine headache as the recurrence of IIH or uncontrolled IIH and subsequent inappropriate management.

Background: The role of urinary cystatin C to early predict acute kidney injury (AKI) in children and neonates remains uncertain. The present study aimed to assess and compare the level of urinary cystatin C in neonates with and those without AKI. Methods: This cross-sectional study was performed on 55 available neonates who were involved by AKI and admitted to the neonatal department at Ali-Asghar hospital in Tehran in 2016. 97 neonates with jaundice and normal serum creatinine level were randomly selected as the control group. In both groups and on admission, the urine levels of cystatin C and creatinine were measured. Results: The average urinary level of cystatin C was 162.87 ± 56.50 mmol/mole creatinine in the group with AKI and 68.06 ± 57.16 mmol/mole creatinine in the control group that was significantly higher in former group (p < 0.001). The measurement of cystatin C level in urine could predict kidney injury with a sensitivity of 98.2%, a specificity of 39.2%, a positive predictive value of 47.8%, a negative predictive value of 97.4%, and an accuracy of 60.5%. Assessment of the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis showed that measuring urinary cystatin C level could effectively discriminate kidney injury from normal kidney condition in neonates (AUC = 0.868, 95CI: 0.811 – 0.925, P < 0.001). The best cutoff value of urinary cystatin C level to predict kidney injury was shown to be 41.5 mmol/mole creatinine yielding a sensitivity of 98.2% and a specificity of 46.4%. Conclusion: Measurement of cystatin C in urine is an early sensitive method to diagnose neonatal kidney injury.

No abstract