Alavi, Afsáneh

Background Pyoderma gangrenosum (PG) is a rare neutrophilic dermatosis characterized by painful and ulcerating lesions on the skin. It rarely involves the face and is often difficult to diagnose. There are few cases reported in the literature of PG involving the face. Aim To share our experience with 5 patients in whom the final diagnosis was PG involving the face, and to review the literature. Methods We report a series of 5 patients with a final diagnosis of PG involving the face and reviewed relevant literature. We searched through PubMed and EMBASE using keywords such as “face” and “pyoderma gangrenosum,” “blastomycosis-like pyoderma gangrenosum, vegetative pyoderma gangrenosum and granulomatous pyoderma gangrenosum.” Results We report 5 patients (4 females) with pyoderma gangrenosum involving the face. All 5 had a final diagnosis of superficial granulomatous PG. All cases presented with nonhealing facial ulcer most commonly on cheeks and a common histopathology of mixed inflammatory infiltrates, multinucleated giant cells, and plasma cells with some granulomatous inflammation. Conclusions PG can involve the face, and all 5 of our patients had the superficial granulomatous as the most common form.

Abstract Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a chronic and often debilitating inflammatory condition characterized by frequent nodules, abscesses, sinus tracts, and scars impacting the intertriginous areas. Many patients with HS often report limited treatment success and symptom coverage with conventional therapies. Recent studies have reported the widespread use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) among patients with HS. In this study, our aim was to examine current physician practice patterns, opinions, and comfort with recommending CAM. Our results indicate that provider comfort and opinions on CAM varied based on the provider's experiences, demographics, and the CAM modality itself. Overall, nearly two‐thirds (n = 30, 61.2%) of respondents agreed that CAM and conventional medicine were more effective together than either alone. Meanwhile, 44.9% (n = 22) of respondents routinely recommend CAM while 64.6% (n = 31) of respondents reported that they are routinely asked about CAM. The majority (n = 41, 83.7%) of respondents indicated a lack of scientific evidence in the medical literature as a barrier to recommending CAM along with efficacy concerns (n = 34, 69.4%) and ability to recommend reputable CAM products (n = 32, 65.3%) and practitioners (n = 32, 65.3%). Future investigations are warranted to establish a better understanding of the efficacy and benefit of CAM methods in conjunction with conventional methods.

AbstractThere is a lack of validated tools to measure fatigue in patients with inflammatory skin, neuropsychiatric, and medical disorders. The use of nonvalidated tools may compromise the quality of data. The purpose of this meta‐review was to evaluate existing fatigue scales commonly used to assess fatigue in other inflammatory conditions and to identify if there are scales that have been validated in dermatologic conditions. The PubMed/MEDLINE and SCOPUS databases were systematically searched from inception through March 10, 2020, in accordance with the PRISMA statement. Validated tools were identified and assessed according to their main measurement properties. The literature search identified 403 references, and eight studies were eligible and assessed in this review. The unidimensional fatigue scales included were the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy – Fatigue (FACIT‐F), Brief Fatigue Inventory, Fatigue Severity Scale, Numerical Rating Scale – Fatigue, and Visual Analog Scale – Fatigue. The multidimensional fatigue scales found were the Checklist Individual Strength, Chalder Fatigue Scale, Multidimensional Assessment of Fatigue, Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory Scale, and Piper Fatigue Scale. To measure fatigue, a brief scale with the ability to detect change is needed as there is a growing interest in evaluating this dimension of treatment response. In addition, a good content validity is also needed. From this systematic review, none of the selected scales have had content validation, even though the FACIT was validated in patients with psoriatic arthritis. Validation studies in specific disorders are urgently warranted.