Adverse skin reactions to personal protective equipment against severe acute respiratory syndrome--a descriptive study in Singapore

COVID-19 with dermatologic manifestations and implications: An unfolding conundrum

The novel coronavirus SARS‐CoV‐2 has caused Coronavirus Disease 2019, widely known as COVID‐19, now a pandemic with extraordinary infectivity, mortality, and fomite adhesiveness. We delineate cutaneous manifestations of COVID‐19, some of which may represent adverse cutaneous drug reactions, and skin changes associated with COVID‐19 lifestyle alterations in patients and health care workers. We review COVID‐19 from both a dermatologic and public health perspective.

Coronavirus Disease of 2019 (COVID-19) Facts and Figures: What Every Dermatologist Should Know at this Hour of Need

Coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has affected India and the world as a whole, like nothing in the recent history and we, dermatologists, are also affected directly or indirectly. In this review, we have tried to address the COVID-19-related information we need to be aware of as a health-care professional. We have discussed the relevant details of the disease: the agent, the symptomatology, common preventive measures, investigations, and management outline. We have also discussed the implications of COVID-19 in dermatology practice and given a basic guideline for dermatology practice during the pandemic.

Investigation of adverse reactions in healthcare personnel working in Level 3 barrier protection PPE to treat COVID-19

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The aim of our study was to investigate potential adverse reactions in healthcare professionals working in Level 3 barrier protection personal protective equipment (L3PPE) to treat patients with COVID-19.

STUDY DESIGN

By using a convenience sampling approach, 129 out of 205 randomly selected healthcare professionals from the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine were invited to take part in a WeChat messaging app survey, Questionnaire Star, via a survey link. Healthcare personnel details were collected, including profession, years of professional experience and adverse reactions while wearing L3PPE. Survey results were divided by profession and years of professional experience; differences in adverse reactions were compared.

RESULTS

Among the 129 healthcare professionals surveyed, 21 (16.28%) were doctors and 108 (83.72%) were nurses. A total of 122 (94.57%) healthcare professionals experienced discomfort while wearing L3PPE to treat patients with COVID-19. The main reasons for adverse reactions and discomfort include varying degrees of adverse skin reactions, respiratory difficulties, heat stress, dizziness and nausea. Doctors had a lower incidence of rashes (χ²=4.519, p=0.034) and dizziness (χ²=4.123, p=0.042) when compared with nurses. Junior (8.5 years of experience or fewer) healthcare personnel also experienced a higher rate of heat stress when compared with senior personnel (more than 8.5 years greater) (χ²=5.228, p=0.022).

CONCLUSION

More attention should be offered to healthcare personnel wearing L3PPE to treat patients with COVID-19 because they are susceptible to developing adverse reactions.

The adverse skin reactions of health care workers using personal protective equipment for COVID-19

In December 2019, a new coronavirus was found in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China, and spread rapidly throughout the country, attracting global attention. On February 11, the World Health Organization (WHO) officially named the disease caused by 2019-nCoV coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). With the increasing number of cases, health care workers (HCWs) from all over China volunteered to work in Hubei Province. Because of the strong infectivity of COVID-19, HCWs need to wear personal protective equipment (PPE), such as N95 masks, latex gloves, and protective clothing. Due to the long-term use of PPE, many adverse skin reactions may occur. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to explore the adverse skin reactions among HCWs using PPE.Questionnaires were used for the research; a quantitative study was carried out to determine the incidence of adverse skin reactions among HCWs using PPE.A total of 61 valid questionnaires were collected. The most common adverse skin reactions among HCWs wearing N95 masks were nasal bridge scarring (68.9%) and facial itching (27.9%). The most common adverse skin reactions among HCWs wearing latex gloves were dry skin (55.7%), itching (31.2%), and rash (23.0%). The most common adverse skin reactions among HCWs wearing protective clothing were dry skin (36.1%) and itching (34.4%).When most HCWs wear PPE for a long period of time, they will experience adverse skin reactions. The incidence of adverse skin reactions to the N95 mask was 95.1%, that to latex gloves was 88.5%, and that to protective clothing was 60.7%.

Short-term skin reactions following use of N95 respirators and medical masks

Background

In the context of the COVID‐19 pandemic, cases of adverse skin reactions related to the wearing of masks have been observed.

Objectives

To analyze the short‐term effects of N95 respirators and medical masks, respectively, on skin physiological properties and to report adverse skin reactions caused by the protective equipment.

Methods

This study used a randomized crossover design with repeated measurements. Twenty healthy Chinese volunteers were recruited. Skin parameters were measured on areas covered by the respective masks and on uncovered skin 2 and 4 hours after donning, and 0.5 and 1 hour after removing the masks, including skin hydration, transepidermal water loss (TEWL), erythema, pH, and sebum secretion. Adverse reactions were clinically assessed, and perceived discomfort and non‐compliance measured.

Results

Skin hydration, TEWL, and pH increased significantly with wearing the protective equipment. Erythema values increased from baseline. Sebum secretion increased both on the covered and uncovered skin with equipment‐wearing. There was no significant difference in physiological values between the two types of equipment. More adverse reactions were reported following a N95 mask use than the use of a medical mask, with a higher score of discomfort and non‐compliance.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates that skin biophysical characters change as a result of wearing a mask or respirator. N95 respirators were associated with more skin reactions than medical masks.

COVID-19 Pandemic & Skin Care Guidelines for Health Care Professionals

The Novel corona virus is bringing multiple challenges for health care professionals. Skin is the biggest organ and the first line of defense against different infections and external factors. Being the front line warriors, health care professionals are susceptible to various skin conditions due to prolonged use of personal protective equipment. These adverse skin conditions are redness, irritation, itching, contact dermatitis, and aggravation of underlying skin conditions like seborrheic dermatitis and acne vulgaris. In the current global situation, the potential incidence of such adverse dermatological effects does not in any manner cause the HCPs to deviate from the strict specific precautionary hygiene rules. These skin problems are manageable with the few precautionary measures. This article explores the different skin conditions that result from personal hygiene measures and usage of protective gear and will suggest some practical advice about how to manage and protect from these different adverse skin conditions.

Consensus of Chinese experts on protection of skin and mucous membrane barrier for health-care workers fighting against coronavirus disease 2019

Health professions preventing and controlling Coronavirus Disease 2019 are prone to skin and mucous membrane injury, which may cause acute and chronic dermatitis, secondary infection and aggravation of underlying skin diseases. This is a consensus of Chinese experts on protective measures and advice on hand‐cleaning‐ and medical‐glove‐related hand protection, mask‐ and goggles‐related face protection, UV‐related protection, eye protection, nasal and oral mucosa protection, outer ear, and hair protection. It is necessary to strictly follow standards of wearing protective equipment and specification of sterilizing and cleaning. Insufficient and excessive protection will have adverse effects on the skin and mucous membrane barrier. At the same time, using moisturizing products is highly recommended to achieve better protection.

COVID-19 pandemic and the skin: what should dermatologists know?

The world has changed dramatically since the COVID-19 pandemic began. In addition to our social, occupational, and personal lives, the new coronavirus also poses novel challenges for all physicians, including dermatologists. Several skin conditions have emerged, mainly as a result of prolonged contact with personal protective equipment and excessive personal hygiene. Pressure injury, contact dermatitis, itch, pressure urticaria, and exacerbation of preexisting skin diseases, including seborrheic dermatitis and acne, have been described. We have focused on the dermatologic aspects of the COVID-19 infection so that dermatologists are aware of the skin complications and preventive measures can be taken in the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Effects of the Face Mask on the Skin Underneath: A Prospective Survey During the COVID-19 Pandemic

PURPOSE

The study aimed to explore the prevalence and possible risk factors to prevent the face mask related adverse skin reactions during the ongoing COVID-19 after a recommendation of face mask wearing for public use in Thailand.

RESULTS

The prevalence of face mask related adverse skin reactions was 454 cases (54.5%), of which acne was the most frequent (399; 39.9%), followed by rashes on the face (154; 18.4%), and itch symptoms (130; 15.6%). Wearing a surgical mask showed a higher risk of adverse skin reaction compared to a cloth mask, OR (95% CI) = 1.54 (1.16-2.06). A duration of face mask wearing of more than 4 hours/day and the reuse of face masks increased the risk of adverse skin reactions compared to changing the mask every day, adjusted OR(95% CI) = 1.96 (1.29-2.98), and 1.5 (1.11-2.02).

CONCLUSION

Suggestions were made for wearing a cloth mask in non-health care workers (HCW) to decrease the risk of face mask related adverse skin reactions. This suggestion could potentially help in decreasing the demand of surgical masks which should be reserved for the HCW population during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

Acne Management Guidelines by the Dermatological Society of Singapore

Due to the multiethnic patient population with varying skin types in Singapore, clinicians often find the management of acne in their patients to be challenging. The authors developed these guidelines to provide comprehensive advice on individualized acne treatment and to provide a reference guide for all doctors who treat patients of Asian descent. Unique features of acne in Singapore are highlighted. We address concerns such as diet, special population needs, and the benefits, side effects, risks, and cost-effectiveness of currently available acne treatments. These treatment guidelines outline recommendations for the diagnosis, grading, and treatment of children, adolescents, and adults with acne of varying severity, and include advice pertaining to the use of cosmeceuticals and management of scars.

Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses

BACKGROUND

Viral epidemics or pandemics of acute respiratory infections like influenza or severe acute respiratory syndrome pose a global threat. Antiviral drugs and vaccinations may be insufficient to prevent their spread.

OBJECTIVES

To review the effectiveness of physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched The Cochrane Library, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2010, Issue 3), which includes the Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1966 to October 2010), OLDMEDLINE (1950 to 1965), EMBASE (1990 to October 2010), CINAHL (1982 to October 2010), LILACS (2008 to October 2010), Indian MEDLARS (2008 to October 2010) and IMSEAR (2008 to October 2010).

SELECTION CRITERIA

In this update, two review authors independently applied the inclusion criteria to all identified and retrieved articles and extracted data. We scanned 3775 titles, excluded 3560 and retrieved full papers of 215 studies, to include 66 papers of 67 studies. We included physical interventions (screening at entry ports, isolation, quarantine, social distancing, barriers, personal protection, hand hygiene) to prevent respiratory virus transmission. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cohorts, case-controls, before-after and time series studies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used a standardised form to assess trial eligibility. We assessed RCTs by randomisation method, allocation generation, concealment, blinding and follow up. We assessed non-RCTs for potential confounders and classified them as low, medium and high risk of bias.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 67 studies including randomised controlled trials and observational studies with a mixed risk of bias. A total number of participants is not included as the total would be made up of a heterogenous set of observations (participant people, observations on participants and countries (object of some studies)). The risk of bias for five RCTs and most cluster-RCTs was high. Observational studies were of mixed quality. Only case-control data were sufficiently homogeneous to allow meta-analysis. The highest quality cluster-RCTs suggest respiratory virus spread can be prevented by hygienic measures, such as handwashing, especially around younger children. Benefit from reduced transmission from children to household members is broadly supported also in other study designs where the potential for confounding is greater. Nine case-control studies suggested implementing transmission barriers, isolation and hygienic measures are effective at containing respiratory virus epidemics. Surgical masks or N95 respirators were the most consistent and comprehensive supportive measures. N95 respirators were non-inferior to simple surgical masks but more expensive, uncomfortable and irritating to skin. Adding virucidals or antiseptics to normal handwashing to decrease respiratory disease transmission remains uncertain. Global measures, such as screening at entry ports, led to a non-significant marginal delay in spread. There was limited evidence that social distancing was effective, especially if related to the risk of exposure.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Simple and low-cost interventions would be useful for reducing transmission of epidemic respiratory viruses. Routine long-term implementation of some measures assessed might be difficult without the threat of an epidemic.

[Maintenance status of N95 respirator masks after use in a health care setting]

With the purpose of assessing the damages to N95 respirator masks over time and to estimate their expiration after use in clinical practice, this study was based on the descriptive analysis of N95 cone-shaped masks collected by nursing assistants after one, five, 15, and 30 consecutive days of use. Personal identification marks were founds in every respirator already on the first day of use. From the fifth day onward, all masks presented some type of dirt while folds were observed in more than 80% of the devices. Internal stains and folds were more frequent among workers of the 12-hour shift in comparison to the 6-hour shift (p < 0.05). The percentage of misplaced respirators was 16.17% by day five and reached 38.93% by day thirty. Though there is no convenience in reusing N95 respirators, their expiration should not exceed 5 days of use.

Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses

BACKGROUND

Viral epidemics or pandemics of acute respiratory infections like influenza or severe acute respiratory syndrome pose a world-wide threat. Antiviral drugs and vaccinations may be insufficient to prevent catastrophe.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the effectiveness of physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2009, issue 2); MEDLINE (1966 to May 2009); OLDMEDLINE (1950 to 1965); EMBASE (1990 to May 2009); and CINAHL (1982 to May 2009).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We scanned 2958 titles, excluded 2790 and retrieved the full papers of 168 trials, to include 59 papers of 60 studies. We included any physical interventions (isolation, quarantine, social distancing, barriers, personal protection and hygiene) to prevent transmission of respiratory viruses. We included the following study designs: randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cohorts, case controls, cross-over, before-after, and time series studies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used a standardised form to assess trial eligibility. RCTs were assessed by: randomisation method; allocation generation; concealment; blinding; and follow up. Non-RCTs were assessed for the presence of potential confounders, and classified into low, medium, and high risks of bias.

MAIN RESULTS

The risk of bias for the four RCTs, and most cluster RCTs, was high. The observational studies were of mixed quality. Only case-control data were sufficiently homogeneous to allow meta-analysis.The highest quality cluster RCTs suggest respiratory virus spread can be prevented by hygienic measures, such as handwashing, especially around younger children. Additional benefit from reduced transmission from children to other household members is broadly supported in results of other study designs, where the potential for confounding is greater. Six case-control studies suggested that implementing barriers to transmission, isolation, and hygienic measures are effective at containing respiratory virus epidemics. We found limited evidence that N95 respirators were superior to simple surgical masks, but were more expensive, uncomfortable, and caused skin irritation. The incremental effect of adding virucidals or antiseptics to normal handwashing to decrease respiratory disease remains uncertain. Global measures, such as screening at entry ports, were not properly evaluated. There was limited evidence that social distancing was effective especially if related to the risk of exposure.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Many simple and probably low-cost interventions would be useful for reducing the transmission of epidemic respiratory viruses. Routine long-term implementation of some of the measures assessed might be difficult without the threat of a looming epidemic.

Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses: systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To review systematically the evidence of effectiveness of physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses.

DATA SOURCES

Cochrane Library, Medline, OldMedline, Embase, and CINAHL, without restrictions on language or publication. Data selection Studies of any intervention to prevent the transmission of respiratory viruses (isolation, quarantine, social distancing, barriers, personal protection, and hygiene). A search of study designs included randomised trials, cohort, case-control, crossover, before and after, and time series studies. After scanning of the titles, abstracts and full text articles as a first filter, a standardised form was used to assess the eligibility of the remainder. Risk of bias of randomised studies was assessed for generation of the allocation sequence, allocation concealment, blinding, and follow-up. Non-randomised studies were assessed for the presence of potential confounders and classified as being at low, medium, or high risk of bias.

DATA SYNTHESIS

58 papers of 59 studies were included. The quality of the studies was poor for all four randomised controlled trials and most cluster randomised controlled trials; the observational studies were of mixed quality. Meta-analysis of six case-control studies suggested that physical measures are highly effective in preventing the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome: handwashing more than 10 times daily (odds ratio 0.45, 95% confidence interval 0.36 to 0.57; number needed to treat=4, 95% confidence interval 3.65 to 5.52), wearing masks (0.32, 0.25 to 0.40; NNT=6, 4.54 to 8.03), wearing N95 masks (0.09, 0.03 to 0.30; NNT=3, 2.37 to 4.06), wearing gloves (0.43, 0.29 to 0.65; NNT=5, 4.15 to 15.41), wearing gowns (0.23, 0.14 to 0.37; NNT=5, 3.37 to 7.12), and handwashing, masks, gloves, and gowns combined (0.09, 0.02 to 0.35; NNT=3, 2.66 to 4.97). The combination was also effective in interrupting the spread of influenza within households. The highest quality cluster randomised trials suggested that spread of respiratory viruses can be prevented by hygienic measures in younger children and within households. Evidence that the more uncomfortable and expensive N95 masks were superior to simple surgical masks was limited, but they caused skin irritation. The incremental effect of adding virucidals or antiseptics to normal handwashing to reduce respiratory disease remains uncertain. Global measures, such as screening at entry ports, were not properly evaluated. Evidence was limited for social distancing being effective, especially if related to risk of exposure-that is, the higher the risk the longer the distancing period.

CONCLUSION

Routine long term implementation of some of the measures to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses might be difficult. However, many simple and low cost interventions reduce the transmission of epidemic respiratory viruses. More resources should be invested into studying which physical interventions are the most effective, flexible, and cost effective means of minimising the impact of acute respiratory tract infections.

Readiness exercise to combat avian influenza

AIM

To examine the readiness of our hospital for the potential pandemic threat of avian influenza, we developed and implemented simulation case scenarios in our hospital.

METHODS

Two volunteers, who assumed the identity of 'actual' patients, were trained to simulate acute respiratory symptoms following a visit to an avian influenza-affected area, and their identities and locations were kept confidential prior to the readiness exercise. A team of auditors was stationed at high-risk areas to assess adherence to the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) and infection control procedures.

RESULTS

A total of 324 healthcare workers and 84 administrators participated in this hospital-wide exercise. Following disclosure of their symptoms, the 'patients' were masked and isolated in negative-pressure rooms. A quarantine order was enforced on 38 inpatients and 45 healthcare workers who were present in the affected wards at the time of the exercise, which mandated the use of PPE. Although all affected healthcare workers were competent in the use of PPE, we observed breaches in PPE and isolation procedures in eight medical and nursing students, and 10 healthcare attendants. The exercise concluded after H5N1 tests returned negative.

CONCLUSION

We recommend the use of case simulation as an effective means of assessing potential breaches in infection control procedures.

Effect of surgical masks worn concurrently over N95 filtering facepiece respirators: extended service life versus increased user burden

Growing concern over the availability of Respiratory protective devices (eg, filtering facepiece Respirators), in the face of the probable extreme demand brought on by a pandemic influenza, has prompted the suggestion that useful life of N95 filtering facepiece Respirator can be extended by the concurrent use of a surgical mask as an outer protective barrier over the Respirator. Personal protective equipment generally places a strain on the user, and the detrimental physiological and psychological burdens normally imposed by Respirator use could be magnified by the addition of an extra layer of protection such as a surgical mask. The issue of this potentially increased burden of the concurrent use of a surgical facemask with an N95 filtering facepiece Respirator is investigated to afford users the necessary information to make informed decisions Regarding the use of this Respiratory personal protective equipment in the face of large-scale outbreaks of Respiratory pathogens.