Background: Bimekizumab, secukinumab, and ixekizumab are IL-17-targeting biologics approved for the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. While secukinumab and ixekizumab selectively inhibit IL-17A, bimekizumab targets both IL-17A and IL-17F, potentially providing greater anti-inflammatory efficacy. This study aimed to compare the real-world effectiveness, safety, and tolerability of these agents in a Polish dermatology center between 2019 and 2024. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 98 patients meeting at least one of the following criteria: PASI ≥ 10, BSA ≥ 10, DLQI ≥ 10, or involvement of special areas with inadequate response or contraindications to ≥2 systemic therapies. Patients with prior exposure only to IL-17 inhibitors were excluded. PASI, BSA, and DLQI scores were recorded at baseline, week 4, and week 12. Due to differences in dosing schedules, outcomes were aligned using standardized timepoints and exponential modeling of continuous response trajectories. Mixed-effects ANOVA was used to assess the influence of baseline factors (age, BMI, PsA status) on treatment outcomes. Adverse events were documented at each monthly follow-up visit. Results: Bimekizumab showed the greatest effect size for PASI reduction (Hedges’ g = 3.662), followed by secukinumab (2.813) and ixekizumab (1.986). Exponential modeling revealed a steeper response trajectory with bimekizumab (intercept = 0.289), suggesting a more rapid PASI improvement. The efficacy of bimekizumab was particularly notable in patients who were previously treated with IL-23 inhibitors. All three agents demonstrated favorable safety profiles, with no serious adverse events or discontinuations. The most frequent adverse events were mild and included upper respiratory tract infections and oral candidiasis. Conclusions: This real-world analysis confirmed that IL-17 inhibitors effectively improved PASI, BSA, and DLQI scores in moderate-to-severe psoriasis. Bimekizumab demonstrated the most rapid early improvements and a higher modeled likelihood of complete clearance, without significant differences at week 12. All agents were well tolerated, underscoring the need for further individualized, large-scale studies.

Background: Lichen planus (LP) is a chronic, immune‐mediated inflammatory disorder affecting the skin, mucous membranes, hair, and nails. Conventional therapies such as corticosteroids and systemic immunosuppressants often demonstrate limited efficacy and are associated with undesirable side effects. The underlying inflammatory process is largely dominated by Th1/IFN‐ɣ cytokines and the activation of the Janus kinase (JAK)‐STAT pathway, highlighting JAK inhibitors as a novel, targeted therapeutic approach for recalcitrant forms of LP. Aim: The aim of the study was to systematically analyze the current scientific evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of JAK inhibitors in the treatment of various LP variants. Material and Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines using PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases from inception up to May 2026. Eighty‐four relevant studies were enrolled into the final analysis. The risk of bias and quality of evidence were assessed using the JBI critical appraisal tools. Results: The final analysis consisted predominantly of case reports, case series, and limited controlled trials. Both systemic agents (e.g., tofacitinib, upadacitinib, and baricitinib) and topical formulations (e.g., ruxolitinib) demonstrated rapid reductions in pruritus and pain, followed by clinical resolution of inflammatory lesions. High rates of complete and partial clinical responses were observed across diverse variants. Short‐term adverse effects were generally mild and manageable, although the overall certainty of the evidence was low. Conclusions: JAK inhibitors demonstrate a promising preliminary clinical response and acceptable short‐term safety for managing refractory LP variants. While these agents present a valuable alternative to conventional therapies, the current evidence relies heavily on observational data. Large, randomized controlled trials with long‐term follow‐up are needed to establish optimal dosing, confirm safety, and evaluate sustained efficacy in clinical practice.

Swallowing disorders in the paediatric population are often multifactorial in origin, necessitating diagnosis and management by specialists from multiple medical disciplines. Currently, two diagnostic modalities are considered the “gold standard” for assessing these disorders in children: flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) and videofluoroscopic swallowing study (VFSS). FEES consists of three stages. The first stage involves an assessment of the anatomy and physiology of the nose, nasopharynx, oropharynx, hypopharynx, and larynx. The second stage involves evaluating the swallowing of foods with varying consistencies, allowing for the identification of problems related to residue retention and aspiration. The third stage assesses the effectiveness of therapeutic interventions. FEES enables the assessment of residue and aspiration risk, particularly in populations such as exclusively breastfed infants and patients for whom VFSS is contraindicated or not feasible. The procedure is safe and well-tolerated by children and can be performed at the patient’s bedside. Because it does not expose the patient to ionising radiation, FEES can be repeated at short intervals. It is important to note that there is no universal protocol for all paediatric patients; the FEES protocol must be individualised to accommodate the patient’s age, developmental level, and general clinical condition. It is important to emphasise that FEES and VFSS are complementary techniques rather than substitutes for one another. A centre specialising in the diagnosis of dysphagia should have the capability to perform both tests.

Background: Hailey–Hailey disease (familial benign chronic pemphigus) is a rare autosomal dominant genodermatosis caused by ATP2C1 gene mutations, leading to defective calcium‐dependent ATPase. The function of this protein is to regulate calcium sequestration in the Golgi apparatus. While the mutation leads to impaired desmosome function, causing acantholysis of the suprabasal epidermis in the skin. Clinically, it presents with vesicles, erosions, fissures and weeping plaques, primarily in intertriginous areas. Symptoms worsen with heat, sweat, friction, and trauma, while treatment options remain limited. Objectives: The aim of this systematic review was to review the available literature to assess the efficacy and safety of botulinum toxin as a therapeutic option for the treatment of Hailey–Hailey disease. Methods: A literature review was conducted in Embase and MEDLINE using keywords like “Hailey–Hailey disease,” “pemphigus,” and “botulin toxin.” The search followed PRISMA guidelines, incorporating EMTREE and MESH terms. Inclusion criteria covered original trials, case reports, and case series in English until July 2025. Of 28 identified studies, 21 were included after further manual review. Results: Twenty‐one articles involving 68 patients described the use of botulinum toxin in HHD. Most patients achieved significant improvement and partial or complete remission of skin symptoms after injection or reinjection of botulinum toxin. Only one patient showed no improvement in target lesions. Combined botulinum toxin, photodynamic therapy, and dapsone yielded superior improvement with PDT + BoNT‐A showing better outcomes than BoNT‐A alone. No side effects were observed. Conclusions: Botulinum toxin appears to be a promising therapeutic alternative in HHD with a very good tolerability, both as a complementary treatment and as an adjuvant to other forms of therapy, such as PDT. Larger studies are required to confirm its efficacy, long‐term effects, and also to establish the optimal doses and number of botulinum toxin injections resulting in a standardized treatment regimen.