Background and Aim: Metabolic syndrome (MetS) is a well‐known noncommunicable disease that plays a significant role in emerging other chronic disorders and following complications. MetS is also involved in the pathophysiology of numerous dermatological diseases. We aim to evaluate the association of MetS with the most prevalent dermatological diseases.Methods: A systematic search was carried out on PubMed, Science Direct, Web of Science, Cochrane, as well as the Google Scholar search engine. Only English case‐control studies regarding MetS and any skin disease from the beginning of 2010 up to November 15, 2022, were selected. The study was conducted based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analysis (PRISMA).Results: A total of 37 studies (13,830 participants) met the inclusion criteria. According to our result, patients with psoriasis, hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), vitiligo, androgenetic alopecia (AGA), and lichen planus (LP) have a higher chance of having MetS compared to the general population. Furthermore, people with seborrheic dermatitis (SED) and rosacea are more prone to insulin resistance, high blood pressure (BP), and higher blood lipids. After pooling data, the meta‐analysis revealed a significant association between MetS and skin diseases (pooled odds ratio [OR]: 3.28, 95% confidence interval: 2.62−4.10). Concerning the type of disease, MetS has been correlated with AGA (OR: 11.86), HS (OR: 4.46), LP (OR: 3.79), and SED (OR: 2.45). Psoriasis also showed a significant association but with high heterogeneity (OR: 2.89). Moreover, skin diseases and MetS are strongly associated in Spain (OR: 5.25) and Thailand (OR: 11.86). Regarding the metaregression model, the effect size was reduced with increasing age (OR: 0.965), while the size increased with AGA (OR: 3.064).Conclusions: MetS is closely associated with skin complications. Dermatologists and other multidisciplinary teams should be cautious while treating these patients to prevent severe complications resulting from MetS.

Most of drugs could have certain mucocutaneous reactions and COVID‐19 drugs are not an exception that we focused. We systematically reviewed databases until August/15/2020 and among initial 851 articles, 30 articles entered this study (20 case reports, 4 cohorts and 6 controlled clinical trials). The types of reactions included AGEP, morbiliform drug eruptions, vasculitis, DRESS syndrome, urticarial vasculitis and etc. The treatments have been used before side effects occur, included: antimalarial, anti‐viral, antibiotics, tocilizumab, enoxaparin and etc. In pandemic, we found 0.004% to 4.15% of definite drug‐induced mucocutaneous reactions. The interval between drug usage and the eruption varied about few hours to 1 month; tightly dependent to the type of drug and hydroxychloroqine seems to be the drug with highest mean interval. Antivirals, antimalarials, azithromycin and tocilizumab are most responsive drugs for adverse drug reactions, but antivirals especially in combination with antimalarial drugs are in the first step. Types of skin reactions are usually morbilliform/exanthematous maculopapular rashes or urticarial eruptions which mostly may manage by steroids during few days. In the setting of HCQ, specific reactions like AGEP should be considered. lopinavir/ritonavir is the most prevalent used drug among antivirals with the highest skin adverse reaction; ribarivin and remdisivir also could induce cutaneous drug reactions but favipiravir has no or less adverse effects. Logically the rate of dermatologic adverse effects among anivirals may relate to their frequency of usage. Rarely, potentially life‐threatening reactions may occur. Better management strategies could achieve by knowing more about drug‐induced mucocutaneous presentations of COVID‐19.

The mucocutaneous manifestations of Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID‐19) logically may reflect systemic visceral involvements. These findings are visible and easy to approach like biopsies for exact histopathologic evaluations. This systematic review was conducted to collect the mucocutaneous histopathologic data of COVID‐19 patients for future investigations and interpretations. The COVID‐19 dermatology resource of the Centre of Evidence‐Based Dermatology (CEBD) at the University of Nottingham, PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar and Medscape was searched for relevant English articles published by June 3, 2020. This review included 31 articles, involving 459 patients. The common primary virus‐related mucocutaneous manifestations are easy to approach in the course of COVID‐19. The authors of this study supposed dermatopathological findings as the predictors of the nature of potential systemic involvements and outcomes of COVID‐19. Scrutinizing these findings can help with adopting more effective therapeutic and management strategies; nevertheless, this review found the severity and time of onset of symptoms not to be associated with the laboratory and histopathological findings. Deterioration of clinical conditions and laboratory tests was also not related to the histopathological findings. It is recommended that meta‐analyses be conducted in the future to detail on these data for having more comprehensive and better conclusion.