The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was one of the countries earliest affected by the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and had taken precautions including compulsory COVID-19 vaccination. Both the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (Oxford AstraZeneca) and the BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer) were approved by the Saudi Ministry of Health, followed by mRNA-1273 (Moderna), all of which were used for population-wide vaccination. This study aimed to assess the short-term side effects following the COVID-19 vaccinations among participants who had received all three doses in the western region of Saudi Arabia. An online survey was distributed to the participants who received either BNT162b2, ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, or mRNA-1273 vaccines, and the type of side effects and their severity were evaluated. Fatigue and headache, pain at the site of the injection and muscle pain were the most common side effects in all three doses. However, the severity depending on the type of vaccination was significant only for the first and second dose, but not the third dose. In contrast, there was a higher percentage of participants who encountered severe side effects from the third dose compared to the first and second. Nevertheless, the majority of participants described all three doses’ side effects to be moderately severe. A future evaluation could be made to access the individual types of vaccination and compare between the side effects of the BNT162b2, ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, and mRNA-1273 vaccines specifically for the booster dose.

In order to fight the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the AstraZeneca vaccine was introduced in the Saudi Arabian vaccination campaign. AstraZeneca was rapidly developed, and side effects have been reported following vaccination. This review aims to evaluate the adverse side-effects of the AstraZeneca vaccine within the Saudi population. A literature search of the national and international databases PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, Embase databases, and Cochrane Library using the search terms “Covid-19 vaccine”, “AstraZeneca post-vaccination,” and “Covid-19 vaccine Saudi Arabia” in combination with the terms “side effects,” “adverse effects,” and “Covid-19 AstraZeneca” was performed. Articles published before 12 January 2022 were eligible for screening. A total of seven articles met the inclusion criteria, totaling 4838 participants. The most common side effects were fever and either pain or redness at the site of the injection. Furthermore, systemic reactions to AstraZeneca accounted for approximately 80% of adverse effects following vaccination. In sum, AstraZeneca appears to have mild to moderate side effects.

Background: Androgenic alopecia (AGA) is a common condition characterized by progressive hair loss influenced by dihydrotestosterone (DHT). While oral dutasteride has shown efficacy in treating AGA, concerns about systemic side effects have prompted interest in localized treatments such as intralesional administration. Aims: This systematic review evaluates the effectiveness and safety of intralesional dutasteride for treating AGA in adults. Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a comprehensive search of multiple databases for studies involving adults (≥ 18 years) with AGA treated with intralesional dutasteride. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials, non‐randomized studies, cohort studies, and observational studies. Exclusion criteria were animal studies, duplicate publications, and studies lacking relevant outcome data. The primary outcomes were improvements in hair density, hair thickness, and photographic evidence of hair growth. Secondary outcomes assessed safety, including local and systemic adverse events. Data extraction and quality assessment were independently performed by two reviewers. Results: Included studies consistently reported improvements in hair density and thickness following intralesional dutasteride treatment, with photographic evidence supporting visual improvement. Treatment was generally well tolerated, with minimal adverse events such as mild scalp irritation and no significant systemic effects reported. However, the studies varied in methodology, sample size, and follow‐up duration. Conclusions: Intralesional dutasteride appears to be a promising treatment option for AGA, offering localized efficacy with a favorable safety profile. Nonetheless, the current evidence is limited by heterogeneity and a lack of large‐scale, high‐quality trials. Further standardized research is needed to confirm these findings.

Background: A distinctive and difficult phenotype, head and neck atopic dermatitis (AD) is linked to a higher disease burden and inconsistent treatment response. The effectiveness of targeted systemic therapy in this field is currently little understood. Objectives: To evaluate both the safety and effectiveness of targeted systemic therapies for individuals’ AD affecting the head and neck, such as tralokinumab, dupilumab, and upadacitinib. Methods: A meta‐analysis and systematic review were conducted using PRISMA guidelines. In three databases (PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE), we searched for relevant research. The qualifying research included observational studies and randomized controlled trials that reported outcomes among patients with head and neck involvement. The primary findings included the head and neck Eczema Area and Severity Index (H&N EASI‐75) and the percentage change in EASI. The Numerical Rating Scale for pruritus, the Dermatology Life Quality Index for quality of life, and safety outcomes were secondary results. The meta‐analysis was conducted using a random‐effects model. Results: Twelve studies were included. The pooled H&N EASI‐75 response rate was 51% (95% CI: 40–62), with a mean percentage reduction in EASI of −72.86% (95% CI: −78.98 to −66.74). Significant improvements were observed in pruritus (mean change −4.38) and quality of life (−9.97). Across indirect, between‐study subgroup comparisons, studies of upadacitinib showed numerically greater effect estimates than studies of dupilumab or tralokinumab; in the absence of head‐to‐head trials, these comparisons are hypothesis‐generating rather than definitive. The overall prevalence of adverse events was 48%, with conjunctivitis (7%) and herpes zoster (2%) reported. Substantial heterogeneity was noted. Conclusions: Targeted systemic therapies were associated with clinically meaningful improvements in head and neck AD, although substantial heterogeneity and the indirect nature of the drug‐specific comparisons warrant cautious interpretation. Differences in efficacy and safety profiles across agents highlight the importance of individualized treatment selection, and further head‐to‐head comparative studies are warranted.

Background: Dermoscopy is a noninvasive technology used to examine the skin’s invisible microstructures in dermatological practice and is gaining prominence as a crucial tool. Dermoscopy is an evidence-based practice used to enhance the early detection of skin malignancies and to help distinguish between various skin conditions, including pigmented and nonpigmented skin malignancies. Currently, the vast majority of global guidelines for skin cancer recommend dermoscopy as a critical component. Dermoscopy use is increasing worldwide, but to date, no study has documented the attitudes toward and use of dermoscopy among future dermatologists in Saudi Arabia. Objective: We aimed to determine the proportion of dermatology residents in Riyadh who use dermoscopy in their clinical practice; identify factors influencing the use of dermoscopy, such as availability of equipment, training, and the perceived importance of dermoscopy in clinical practice; explore barriers to dermoscopy use, including the lack of access to necessary resources (eg, dermoscopes) and insufficient training; and provide insights into the adoption and integration of dermoscopy into dermatology training and clinical practice in Saudi Arabia. Methods: In January 2024, a validated and published questionnaire was modified to meet research requirements and was sent to all registered dermatology residents in the The Saudi Board of Dermatology and Venereology Program. Results: In total, 63 dermatology residents in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, completed the web-based questionnaire (response rate=87.5%). The sample was predominantly female (n=34, 54.0%), with the majority (n=53, 84.1%) aged between 26 and 30 years. A notable proportion of participants (n=22, 34.9%) were in their final year of residency. Over half of the participants (n=34, 54.0%) owned a dermoscope, and a substantial number of them (n=23, 36.5%) reported conducting 21-30 clinic consultations per month on average. More than half of the participants (n=36, 57.1%) had received dermoscopy training, and 16 (36.4%) had used dermoscopy for 2 years. Additionally, most participants (n=20, 45.5%) had used nonpolarized immersion-contact dermoscopy, while 19 (43.2%) had used polarized light dermoscopy. Furthermore, the majority (n=22, 50.0%) used dermoscopy in fewer than 10% of cases involving patients with inflammatory skin lesions. Statistical analysis revealed significant associations between the participants’ ages (P=.003), residency levels (P=.001), and practice centers and the use of dermoscopy (P=.004). Conclusions: Dermoscopy has been widely adopted by dermatology residents in their daily clinical practice due to its benefits in early detection and diagnosis of skin diseases. However, the overall extent of dermoscopy use within the dermatology community remains unclear, highlighting the need for further education. In Saudi Arabia, the key factors influencing dermoscopy use include residents’ ages, residency levels, and practice centers. Younger dermatologists have expressed strong interest in improving their dermoscopy knowledge and skills. Expanding access to dermoscopy equipment and providing training during residency could further promote its use across the country.