Vitiligo is an asymptomatic but cosmetically disfiguring disorder that results in the formation of depigmented patches on skin and/or mucosae. Vitiligo can be segmental or non-segmental depending upon the morphology of the clinical involvement. It can also be classified as progressing or stable based on the activity of the disease. Further, the extent of involvement can be limited (localized disease) or extensive (generalized disease). The treatment of vitiligo therefore depends on the clinical classification/characteristics of the disease and usually comprises of 2 strategies. The first involves arresting the progression of active disease (to provide stability) in order to limit the area involved by depigmentation. The second strategy aims at repigmentation of the depigmented area. It is also important to maintain the disease in a stable phase and to prevent relapse. Accordingly, a holistic treatment approach for vitiligo should be individualistic and should take care of all these considerations. In this review, we shall discuss the vitiligo treatments and their important clinical and molecular aspects.

A subset of multibacillary (MB) leprosy patients manifest with clinical “nonresponsiveness” to the fixed-duration, World Health Organization multidrug therapy MB regimen (WHO-MDT-MBR). The aim of this retrospective study was to assess the effectiveness and safety of alternate anti-leprosy therapy (ALT) in such patients. This is an analysis of patients’ records, registered in the leprosy clinic of our institute over a period of 6 years (2010–2015). The criteria for inadequate response/nonresponsiveness to treatment were as follows: 1) persistent/new lesions after completing ≥ 12 months of WHO-MDT-MBR (isolated reactions were ruled out histopathologically) and 2) persistent positive/increasing value of the morphological index (MI) and a 2 log increase in the bacteriological index (BI) after ≥ 12 months of WHO-MDT-MBR. Such cases were treated with ALT consisting of minocycline, clofazimine, and ofloxacin (24 months). Of 556 patients registered during the study period, 40.3% (224) were slit-skin smear (SSS) positive and 59.7% (332) were SSS negative. Of all, 35 patients (6.3%) satisfied the criteria for clinical nonresponsiveness. Of 224 SSS-positive patients, these 35 patients amounted to 15.6%. The mean BI and MI of these patients after completion of ≥ 12 months of WHO-MDT-MBR were 5.3 ± 0.6 and 14 ± 6.8%, respectively. After 6 months of treatment with ALT, MI became negative (0) in all these patients. After completion of ALT, the mean BI and MI became 1.7 ± 0.7 and 0%, respectively (P < 0.0001). There were 16 patients with corticosteroid-dependent recurrent/chronic erythema nodosum leprosum, who had excellent response with significant reduction in the number of reactional episodes and mean dose of prednisolone required (P < 0.0001). No serious adverse effects were noted. We conclude that ALT is safe and effective in the management of MB leprosy patients who are nonresponsive to 12 months of WHO-MDT-MBR.

Literature on the efficacy of azathioprine in antihistamine refractory chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) is limited. To compare the efficacy and safety of azathioprine with respect to cyclosporine in the treatment of refractory CSU. In this prospective, randomized, active-controlled, non-inferiority study, 80 patients of refractory CSU were administered either cyclosporine (group A, n ​= ​40) or azathioprine (group B, n ​= ​40) for 90 days and followed up for further 90 days. The treatment efficacy was assessed every 15th day using urticaria activity score (UAS7) and outcome scoring scale (OSS). Serum IgE levels, autologous serum skin test (ASST) and autologous plasma skin test (APST) were additionally measured at baseline and 90th day. Primary end point (≥75% reduction in UAS7 at 90th day) was achieved by 31/40 (79.5%) patients in group A and 32/40 (80%) patients in group B (proportion difference -0.5%, 95% confidence interval [CI] of difference -17.13 to 18.09; point estimates favoring B, CIs demonstrating non-inferiority). At 180th day, ≥75% reduction in UAS7 was maintained in 19/40 (47.95%) patients in group A and 24/40 (60%) patients in group B (proportion difference -12.5%, 95% CI of difference -9.00 to 32.46, point estimates favoring B, CIs demonstrating non-inferiority). Thus, the number of patients who could maintain ≥75% reduction in UAS7 at 180th day reduced significantly in group A (proportion difference 30%, 95% CI of difference 8.78 to 47.77), but not in group B (proportion difference 20%, 95% CI of difference -0.10 to 38.10). The values of mean UAS7 significantly decreased from 28.70 ​± ​4.42 and 28.88 ​± ​4.25 at baseline, to 5.56 ​± ​5.12 and 7.0 ​± ​4.48 at 90th day in group A and B respectively (group A, mean difference -23.27, 95% CI of difference -25.33 to -21.22; group B, mean difference -21.87, 95% CI of difference -23.78 to -19.96). It increased significantly to 9.98 ​± ​5.46 in group A at 180th day (mean difference 4.55, 95% CI of difference 2.98 to 6.12), but not in group B (mean UAS7 180th day 7.88 ​± ​5.53, mean difference 0.88, 95% CI of difference -0.82 to 2.57). The reduction in number of patients having positive ASST post-treatment was significant in group A, whereas reduction in IgE levels was more significant in group B. The present study concludes that azathioprine is not inferior to cyclosporine in the treatment of refractory CSU, and it can be a valuable adjunct, especially in resource poor settings.

Background Teledermatology has evolved as a valuable option to outpatient visits during the current pandemic. We set up a smartphone-based hybrid model of teledermatology services providing direct care to patients at our center. Objective To analyze patient and physician-experience and acceptability for teledermatology over a 6-month-period, along with clinicodemographic profile of patients. Methodology Single-center, retrospective study conducted from May 20, 2020 to October 31, 2020. Patient satisfaction level for teledermatology was assessed on a 4-point scale and compared with the satisfaction level during their previous physical visits prior to COVID-19 pandemic. A physician assessment form was utilized to record the experience of dermatologists while providing teledermatology services. Results Of 7530 patients registered, a successful consult was provided to 6125 patients (81.34%). Average number of teleconsultations/ day rose from 23.60 in May 2020 to 77.96 in October 2020. Mean age of patients availing teledermatology services was 33.60 ± 16.99 years. Average distance to care and travel time were 100.90 ± 171.77 kilometers and 135 ± 222.32 minutes respectively. A definitive diagnosis could be ascertained in 5724 patients (93.45%) and in-person visit was recommended to 133 patients (2.2%). Out of 6125 patients, 5229 could be contacted for feedback, 935 (18.18%), 2230 (42.65%), 1749 (33.45%) and 300 patients (5.70%) reported being very satisfied, satisfied, partially satisfied and unsatisfied, respectively. Of 1914 patients, who had availed in-person OPD facilities prior to the pandemic, 914 patients (49.62%) preferred in-person visits. Of 34 dermatologists surveyed, 88.2% felt comfortable providing teleconsultations and 82.4% felt the need to continue teledermatology services in the upcoming months. Conclusion Overall, teledermatology is a valid alternative for in-person dermatology visits during the current crisis; helping with initial triage and further patient management. Further refinement of the process could lead to even more acceptability.