Zawawi, Suha

Background: The regenerative properties of platelet growth factors make platelet-rich-plasma (PRP) an attractive modality for treatment of aging skin. The main objective of this study was to determine efficacy and safety of PRP injections and microneedling compared with saline injections in women with aging skin of the face. Methods: In this prospective, randomized clinical trial, 18 women with facial aging were randomized to receive either PRP injections to the unilateral face and saline injections to the contralateral side, or vice versa. Microneedling was performed after injections on the entire face. Physician assessment, photographs, and treatment satisfaction questionnaires were used for outcome assessment at baseline and 16- and 24-week follow-ups. Results: There was no evidence of improvement and suggestion of worsening in skin laxity and rhytides from baseline to weeks 4, 16, and 24 for PRP and saline (all P ≤ 0.004) and no notable difference in skin roughness between baseline and follow-up time points for PRP or saline (all P ≥ 0.19). The degree of change in skin laxity, rhytides, and skin roughness from baseline to follow-up time points was similar for PRP and saline. All patients experienced some degree of pain/discomfort and burning/stinging sensation at treatment weeks 4, 8, and 12 for both saline and PRP. Conclusions: PRP injections did not seem to be effective for treatment of aging skin of the face in women, with no notable macroscopic improvement in appearance when compared with baseline or saline injections. Advanced age of study participants (>45 years) and less-sensitive methods of evaluation may be potential contributing factors to the lack of detected response.

Background: The presence of various growth factors in platelets makes platelet-rich plasma (PRP) a powerful tool in the stimulation of collagen regeneration in aging skin. The main objective of this study was to determine efficacy and safety of PRP compared with saline solution in women with aging skin of the hands. Methods: In this prospective, randomized clinical trial, 18 women with hand aging received PRP injections every 4 weeks into the unilateral dorsal hand for 12 weeks total; with saline injections into the contralateral hand in a randomized, controlled, single-blind fashion. Physician assessment, photographs, and quality-of-life questionnaires were used for assessment at baseline and at 12-week and 24-week follow-up. Results: The majority of patients reported pain and discomfort along with a burning/stinging sensation in both PRP- and saline-treated hands, with no significant differences noted in any patient outcome measures between the 2 treatments (all P ≥ 0.25). No differences were reliably detected between the treatment hands by a blinded investigator comparing before-and-after clinical photographs of the hands. Conclusions: Three injections of PRP spaced 4 weeks apart did not appear to be effective for treatment of aging skin of the hands in women, with no noted difference as compared with baseline, or saline injection. Although age older than 45 years may be a factor accounting for nonresponse (ie, subtle skin changes are difficult to appreciate, and possible limited platelet regenerative capacity in advanced age), it appears that PRP is not a reliable cosmetic option for management of hand aging. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, II.

Background: Patch testing to a standard series is used to identify culprit allergens in patients with contact dermatitis. The reaction rates evolve over time based on trends in cutaneous exposures by the general population. Objective: The aim of this study was to analyze the patch test results of the Mayo Clinic standard series in patients tested from 2017 to 2021. Methods: The patch test reactions of standard series allergens tested from 2017 to 2021 were retrospectively reviewed and compared with the results of our prior report from 2011 to 2015 as well as the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) report from 2017 to 2018. Results: Of 2667 patients tested, 1683 (63.1%) had at least 1 positive reaction. The 15 allergens with the highest reaction rates were hydroperoxides of linalool 1%, nickel (II) sulfate hexahydrate, methylisothiazolinone, Myroxylon pereirae resin, hydroperoxides of linalool 0.5%, methyldibromo glutaronitrile, neomycin sulfate, cobalt (II) chloride hexahydrate, fragrance mix I, benzalkonium chloride, bacitracin, hydroperoxides of limonene, methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone, p-phenylenediamine, and textile dye mix. Twelve (80%) of these allergens were also in the top 15 of the most recent NACDG report. Conclusions: Hydroperoxides of linalool and hydroperoxides of limonene are new allergens that have been added to our standard series. These are associated with high reaction rates.