Vitiligo is a chronic autoimmune skin disorder whose diagnosis is often psychologically upsetting. The efficacy of the available therapies, including topical corticosteroids and topical calcineurin inhibitors, has historically been limited and the management of vitiligo is still challenging. As vitiligo is a chronic disease limited to the skin, topical rather than systemic therapies may be preferable (especially among patients with localised lesions) to avoid the long‐term side‐effects of the latter. A topical formulation of ruxolitinib, a selective JAK1/2 inhibitor, has recently been approved in the United States for the treatment of non‐segmental vitiligo in patients aged >12 years based on data from the phase III TRuE‐V1 and TRuE‐V2 clinical trials. The aim of this review is to describe the current evidence concerning the efficacy and safety of topical ruxolitinib in the treatment of vitiligo, and discuss issues regarding its use in younger children and pregnant or breastfeeding women, as well as the duration and durability of treatment. The promising results obtained so far suggest that 1.5% ruxolitinib cream is an effective means of treating vitiligo.

To date, over 250 million people have been reportedly infected by COVID‐19 disease, which has spread across the globe and led to approximately 5.1 million fatalities. To prevent both COVID‐19 and viral transmission, DNA‐based/RNA‐based vaccines, non‐replicating viral vector vaccines, and inactivated vaccines have been recently developed. However, a precise clinical and histological characterization of SARS‐CoV‐2 vaccine‐related dermatological manifestations is still lacking. A systematic review of 229 articles was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, in order to provide an extensive overview of SARS‐CoV‐2 vaccine‐related skin manifestations. Data on demographics, number of reported cases with cutaneous involvement, vaccine, and rash type (morphology) were extracted from articles and summarized. A total of 5941 SARS‐CoV‐2 vaccine‐related dermatological manifestations were gathered. Local injection‐site reactions were the most frequently observed, followed by rash/unspecified cutaneous eruption, urticarial rashes, angioedema, herpes zoster, morbilliform/maculopapular/erythematous macular eruption, pityriasis rosea and pityriasis rosea‐like eruptions, and other less common dermatological manifestations. Flares of pre‐existing dermatological conditions were also reported. Cutaneous adverse reactions following SARS‐CoV‐2 vaccine administration seem to be heterogeneous, rather infrequent, and not life‐threatening. Vaccinated patients should be monitored for skin manifestations, and dermatological evaluation should be offered, when needed.

Click on the article title to read more.

Pustular and erythrodermic psoriasis are rare and difficult-to-treat conditions. It has recently been shown that interleukin (IL)-17 inhibitors can be very effective among patients with these forms of psoriasis; however, the potential of IL-23 inhibitors is largely unknown. The aim of this multicentre, retrospective study was to compare the safety, effectiveness, and drug survival of IL-17 and IL-23 inhibitors among patients affected by these rare forms of psoriasis. The study involved 27 patients with erythrodermic psoriasis and 59 with pustular psoriasis (36 with generalised pustular psoriasis and 23 with palmoplantar pustular psoriasis) treated with an IL-17 or IL-23 inhibitor. The effectiveness of the two drug classes was assessed using the disease-specific Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI) and the Investigator Global Assessment, which were evaluated at different time points. There was a consistent trend towards a higher rate of PASI 100 responses in the patients treated with IL-17 inhibitors compared with those treated with IL-23 inhibitors, and the other efficacy outcomes showed a similar trend. There was no significant between-drug class difference in efficacy at any of the time points in the erythrodermic psoriasis cohort, whereas PASI 90 and PASI 100 response rates were significantly higher among the pustular psoriasis patients receiving IL-17 inhibitors at week 12 (IL-23 19% vs. IL-17 54% and IL-23 6% vs. IL-17 40%, respectively) and the percentage of responders to IL-17 inhibition was significantly higher at week 24 (IL-23 25% vs. IL-17 74%). In conclusion, it is therefore reasonable to assume that IL-17 and IL-23 inhibitors are both effective when treating pustular and erythrodermic psoriasis.