A new type of coronavirus family (SARS‐CoV‐2), which can be found in humans and animals, with many varieties and clinical symptoms, was first seen in Wuhan, China in late 2019, under the name novel Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID‐19). In the literature, cutaneous symptoms related to the disease are generally emphasized. However, it is not yet known whether this new SARS‐CoV‐2 virus, which has entered our lives, plays a role in the etiopathogenesis of dermatological diseases. The patients who were admitted to the dermatology outpatient clinic between 1 April and 15 May 2019, and on 1 April and 15 May 2020 were retrospectively analyzed by searching the hospital automation system and patient files. The reason for the same months to be included in the study was to exclude seasonal effects on the diseases. After pandemic, the number of patients with Pityriasis rosea and Kawasaki disease increased significantly in patients who applied to the dermatology outpatient clinic. Our study is the first study showing Pityriasis rosea increase during the pandemic period. We think that this increase is related to HHV‐6 reactivation. Herein, we wanted to draw attention to two diseases in which Human Herpes 6 (HHV‐6) was accused in etiopathogenesis: Kawasaki disease and Pityriasis rosea.

It has been reported that dermatology practices may be a vector for SARS-CoV-2 transmission and elective cases should be postponed during the pandemic period. In this context, studies on the change of patient profile in Dermatology outpatient clinic have been conducted. However, there was no study in the literature about dermatology consultations during the pandemic period. One hundred and fortyseven dermatology consultation cases in the era of COVID-19 pandemic between March 11, 2020 and May 4, 2020 were retrospectively evaluated. Twenty-four patients (16.3%) had suspicion and signs of COVID during consultation (fever, cough, shortness of breath, etc.). Nine (37.5%) of these patients also had accompanying COVID-19 skin lesions (two urticarial lesions, two livedo and necrosis, two maculopapular eruption, two vesicular rashes, one pseudo-chilblain). The number of cases that were suspected to have COVID-19 was statistically significantly higher in consultations requested by the emergency department and intensive care unit, while there were no suspected cases in outpatient clinic consultations (P = .001). Two (1.4%) of these patients were diagnosed with COVID-19 confirmed by PCR within 2 weeks. We acknowledge that daily practice changes frequently during this period, but still our study provides a perspective to other dermatology clinics in terms of the requested dermatology consultations during the pandemic.

Introduction The pandemic caused by the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) has had an unprecedented impact on the overall health and the global economy. Vaccination is currently the most dependable strategy to end the pandemic, despite the slower‐than‐hoped‐for rollout, particularly for low‐to‐middle‐income countries, and the uncertain duration of protection afforded by vaccination. The spike protein of the virus (immunodominant antigen of the virus) is the main target of the approved and candidate SARS‐CoV‐2 vaccines. This protein binds to the ACE2 receptor of the host cell, initiating the entry of the virus into the cell and the chain of subsequent events ending to Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. The safety profile of these vaccines needs is closely assessed. Methods This comprehensive review includes searching the PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases using the keywords “coronavirus”, “COVID‐19”, “vaccine”, “cutaneous reactions”, “allergic reactions”, and “SARS‐CoV‐2”. Manual searching of reference lists of included articles augmented the research. The research was updated in June 2021. Results In this narrative review, we tried to investigate and discuss the cutaneous and allergic reactions related to SARS‐CoV‐2 vaccines currently available in the literature. As a result, although COVID‐19 vaccines can be reported to develop allergic and anaphylactic reactions, especially after m‐RNA vaccines, they remain at a low rate, and it is observed that these reactions may develop more frequently, especially in patients with previous allergies and mast cell disorders. Fortunately, these reactions are generally transient, benign, self‐limited. Conclusion Although there is still no definitive evidence, as dermatologists, we must be aware of the possibility of cutaneous reactions, newly diagnosed dermatoses, or exacerbation of existing dermatoses that may develop after the COVID‐19 vaccinations.

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.

Objective Lichen planus (LP) is an idiopathic, chronic inflammatory disease. Chronic inflammatory diseases can cause metabolic complications. In the literature, data related to the relationship between lichen planus and metabolic syndrome (MS) are limited. We aimed to evaluate the relationship between MS and lichen planus with disease activity. Methods The patients diagnosed with lichen planus at the dermatology outpatient clinic between January 2018 and January 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. 98 lichen planus cases, age‐ and sex‐matched 99 controls, 197 cases in total were included in the study. Results Of the 98 lichen planus cases included in the study, 60 (61%) were women. The mean age of the patients was 49.3 ± 14.4, and the average disease duration was 33.5 ± 31.4 months. 55 (55%) of the patients in the control group were female, and the mean age of the control group was 50 ± 13.2. The body mass index of LP cases was 29.5 ± 5.8, in the control group was 25.8 ± 3.7. Metabolic syndrome was found in 47 (48%) of 98 cases with lichen planus and 32.3% in the control group. MS in the lichen planus group was significantly higher than the control group (P = .025). Metabolic syndrome was detected in the oral lichen planus at the rate of 60% (12 cases). Although the incidence of MS was more common in the oral lichen planus, it was not statistically significant (P = .29). While no significant relationship was found between oral disease severity and metabolic syndrome (P = .19), a significant correlation was found between cutaneous disease severity and metabolic syndrome (P = .023). Discussion The risk of mucosal malignancy that can occur when following LP cases has been known for a long time. According to our results, caution should be taken in terms of metabolic complications in the follow‐up of LP cases, especially oral LP cases.