Evaluation of eyelid features' changes before and after COVID-19 pandemic amongst healthcare and home office workers

PURPOSE

To evaluate the eyelid features' changes after N95 face mask (FM) usage in healthcare workers through the new type of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and make a comparison with home-office workers as a control group with a computer vision algorithm.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sixty healthcare workers and forty control participants with similar demographic features included. Standardized biometric photographs which were taken before and after the COVİD-19 pandemic, analyzed by the ImageJ program (NIH, Bethesda, Md.) software. The distances between the central light reflex on the cornea and the upper (UE) and lower eyelid (LE) were recorded as the marginal reflex distances. (MRD1, MRD2 respectively) Parameters of pretarsal show (PTS) of UE and brow pupil diameter (BPD) were analyzed for both of the eyes.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences among the groups' measurements before the COVID-19 pandemic. In healthcare workers' group after the pandemic, values of MRD1, PTS, BPD showed a significant decrease in their right eye (p = 0.001, p = 0.002, p = 0.001 respectively) and same values reduced in the left eyes as well when compared with pre-pandemic measurements. (p = 0.048, p = 0.001, p = 0.001 respectively) PTS and BPD values were decreased for both right and left eyes of the controls. (p = 0.044, p = 0.001 and p = 0.001, p = 0.001 respectively) MRD1 measurements after the pandemic showed no difference either in the right or left eyes of the control group after the pandemic. (p = 0.071 and p = 0.065 respectively).

DISCUSSION

Results showed that both BPD and PTS values decreased independently from the previous FM usage in both of the groups. Even though MRD1 values remained within the normal values, a significant decrease was detected in the healthcare workers group which suggested the cause was newly developed upper eyelid (UE) dermatochalasis after long hours of FM usage. Although it is hard to make a truly objective evaluation both usage of standardized biometric photographs and a computer-based measurement system makes the results reliable.

COVID-19 pandemic influence on perceived exposure to chemical substances in Latvia: data from a focus group discussion and the HBM4EU citizen survey

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic has globally influenced the exposure of populations to chemical substances through various channels. This study aims to evaluate the tendencies of the use of chemical products in Latvia amidst the pandemic. Answers from 597 respondents (26.6% male, 73.4% female, mean age 46.0 ± 12.2) which were gathered as part of the HBM4EU (Human Biomonitoring Initiative) citizen survey and 8 focus group participants were used.

Methods

The study utilized data from the HBM4EU citizen survey and conducted focus group discussions to understand the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on chemical product usage in Latvia. Survey responses were analyzed to identify changes in exposure to chemicals, particularly in relation to disinfection agents and household products.

Results

More than two-thirds of survey participants reported increased exposure to chemicals during the COVID-19 pandemic, mainly related to the use of disinfection agents and household products. About 2-in-5 (39.8%) of survey respondents considered that the COVID-19 pandemic has increased their interest in exposure to chemicals. The excessive use of disinfectant products is the main concern of citizens (mentioned by 66.7%, n = 389). Also, two focus group participants noted that the use of disinfectant products is too widespread and should be minimized.

Discussion

The findings suggest that the COVID-19 pandemic has not only increased the use of chemical products in Latvia but also promoted an interest in safe and healthy use of chemicals which could be useful to raise the awareness of the general public.

Wearing face masks as a potential source for inhalation and oral uptake of inanimate toxins - A scoping review

BACKGROUND

From 2020 to 2023 many people around the world were forced to wear masks for large proportions of the day based on mandates and laws. We aimed to study the potential of face masks for the content and release of inanimate toxins.

METHODS

A scoping review of 1003 studies was performed (database search in PubMed/MEDLINE, qualitative and quantitative evaluation).

RESULTS

24 studies were included (experimental time 17 min to 15 days) evaluating content and/or release in 631 masks (273 surgical, 228 textile and 130 N95 masks). Most studies (63%) showed alarming results with high micro- and nanoplastics (MPs and NPs) release and exceedances could also be evidenced for volatile organic compounds (VOCs), xylene, acrolein, per-/polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), phthalates (including di(2-ethylhexyl)-phthalate, DEHP) and for Pb, Cd, Co, Cu, Sb and TiO2.

DISCUSSION

Of course, masks filter larger dirt and plastic particles and fibers from the air we breathe and have specific indications, but according to our data they also carry risks. Depending on the application, a risk-benefit analysis is necessary.

CONCLUSION

Undoubtedly, mask mandates during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic have been generating an additional source of potentially harmful exposition to toxins with health threatening and carcinogenic properties at population level with almost zero distance to the airways.

New causes of occupational allergic contact dermatitis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Occupational allergic contact dermatitis (OACD) is an important work-related skin disease. Information about the causative agents comes from many sources, including patch test databases, registries, case series and case reports. This review summarizes new information about common causative allergens and diagnosis.

RECENT FINDINGS

Common causes of OACD include rubber components, epoxies and preservatives. New exposure sources for these allergens continue to be described. Often these exposure sources are related to the changing world around us, such as allergens related to smartphones and technology, and personal protective equipment-related exposures during the COVID-19 pandemic. New allergens are also being described, some of which are related to known allergens (e.g. a new epoxy or acrylate component).Accurate diagnosis is critical to effective management of OACD, which may include removing the worker from exposure to the causative allergen. Safety data sheets may not contain complete information and patch testing with specialized series of allergens and workplace materials may be necessary.

SUMMARY

This review provides current evidence about causes of OACD and important aspects of diagnosis. This is important for clinical practice to ensure cases of OACD are not missed.

Unmet needs for patients with seborrheic dermatitis

Seborrheic dermatitis (SD) is a common skin disease with signs and symptoms that may vary by skin color, associated medical conditions, environmental factors, and vehicle preference. Diagnosis of SD is based on presence of flaky, "greasy" patches, and/or thin plaques accompanied by erythema of the scalp, face, ears, chest, and groin and is associated with pruritus in many patients. The presentation may vary in different skin types and hyper- or hypopigmentation may occur, with or without erythema and minimal or no scaling. While the pathogenesis is not certain, 3 key factors generally agreed upon include lipid secretion by sebaceous glands, Malassezia spp. colonization, and some form of immunologic dysregulation that predisposes the patient to SD. Treatment involves reducing proliferation of, and inflammatory response to, Malassezia spp. Topical therapies, including antifungal agents and low potency corticosteroids, are the mainstay of treatment but may be limited by efficacy and side effects. Few novel treatments for SD are currently being studied; however, clinical trials assessing the use of topical phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitors have been completed. Improving outcomes in SD requires recognizing patient-specific manifestations/locations of the disease, including increased awareness of how it affects people of all skin types.

Toxic Ingredients in Personal Care Products: A Dermatological Perspective

Environmental dermatology is the study of how environmental factors affect the integumentary system. The environment includes natural and built habitats, encompassing ambient exposure, occupational exposures, and lifestyle exposures secondary to dietary and personal care choices. This review explores common toxins found in personal care products and packaging, such as bisphenols, parabens, phthalates, per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances, p-phenylenediamine, and formaldehyde. Exposure to these toxins has been associated with carcinogenic, obesogenic, or proinflammatory effects that can potentiate disease. In addition, these compounds have been implicated as endocrine-disrupting chemicals that can worsen dermatological conditions such as acne vulgaris, or dermatitis. Certain pollutants found in personal care products are not biodegradable and have the potential to bioaccumulate in humans. Therefore, even short-term exposure can cause long-lasting issues for communities. The skin is often the first point of contact for environmental exposures and serves as the conduit between environmental toxins and the human body. Therefore, it is important for dermatologists to understand common pollutants and their acute, subacute, and chronic impact on dermatological conditions to better diagnose and manage disease.

Effect of Face Masking on Transmission of SARS-CoV-2

The efficacy of face masking for the public is not convincing to prevent the transmission of respiratory tract viruses such as SARS-CoV-2 when the criteria of evidence-based medicine are applied. This finding is mainly explained by the results from randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) when a high prevalence of the infection and a high compliance in mask wearing was assured. Throughout these studies no significant protective effect was observed. Observational studies with surgical masks describe a significant protective effect, but are prone to confounders such as physical distance. Respirators do not provide an additional health benefit compared to surgical or medical masks (RCTs). Community masks can even increase the risk of infection (RCTs). Based on the categories of evidence-based medicine, the efficacy results can best be categorized as conflicting evidence. Many relevant adverse events are described when masks are worn for hours such as dyspnea (12.2-52.8%), headache (3.9-73.4%), pruritus (0.0-60.0%), and skin reactions (0.0-85.0%). Their frequency is often higher with respirators. In future pandemics, masks should only be recommended or mandated for settings in which a clinically relevant health benefit can be expected, defined as the prevention of severe, critical or fatal disease, that clearly outweighs the expectable associated adverse reactions.

Phthalate acid esters contribute to the cytotoxicity of mask leachate: Cell-based assay for toxicity assessment

After the COVID-19 outbreak, masks have become an essential part of people lives. Although several studies have been conducted to determine the release of hazardous substances from masks, how their co-presence poses a potential exposure risk to human health remains unexplored. In this study, we quantitatively compared the leaching of substances from six different common types of masks, including phthalate acid esters (PAEs), metals, and microplastics (MPs), and comprehensively evaluated the potential cytotoxicity of different leachates. MPs smaller than 3 µm were quantified by Py-GC-MS, and reusable masks showed greater releasing potentials up to 1504 µg/g. We also detected the prevalence of PAEs in masks, with the highest release reaching 42 μg/g, with dibutyl phthalate (DBP), diisobutyl phthalate (DiBP) and bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) being the predominant types. Moreover, the antimicrobial cloth masks released 173.0 µg of Cu or 4.5 µg of Ag, representing 2.7% and 0.04% of the original masks, respectively. Our cell-based assay results demonstrated for the first time that mask leachate induced nuclear condensation with DNA damage, and simultaneously triggered high levels of glutathione and reactive oxidative stress production, which exacerbated mitochondrial fragmentation, eventually leading to cell death. Combined with substance identification and correlation analysis, PAEs were found to be the contributors to cytotoxicity. Masks containing Cu or Ag led to acidification of lysosomes and alkalinization of cells. These results strongly suggested that the levels of PAEs in the production of regulatory masks should be strictly controlled.

Factors associated with mask-induced dermatosis and its impact on patients' quality of life

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to have a significant impact on society, both physically and mentally. Mask use in public places has been made mandatory in many countries, as it is one of the most effective methods to prevent transmission of the virus. However, continuous mask usage has been associated with the emergence of various cutaneous diseases in the areas of contact with the mask. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of various cutaneous manifestations resulting from mask use on patients' quality of life through a questionnaire survey. This was a cross-sectional study conducted at a hospital from May to July 2022. Patients who had experienced skin symptoms related to mask use in the past or present were included in the study. Participants completed the questionnaire with informed consent. A total of 165 participants participated in the survey, with the most common complaint being itching (58.18%), followed by acne (52.73%). Itching was found to have the highest dermatology life quality index score. Patients with skin redness had a lower quality of life compared to those without it. Prolonged mask-wearing can result in skin diseases that can seriously impair patients' quality of life.

Revisiting the rationale of mandatory masking

In this perspective, we review the evidence for the efficacy of face masks to reduce the transmission of respiratory viruses, specifically severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), and consider the value of mandating universal mask wearing against the widespread negative impacts that have been associated with such measures. Before the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, it was considered that there was little to no benefit in healthy people wearing masks as prophylaxis against becoming infected or as unwitting vectors of viral transmission. This accepted policy was hastily reversed early on in the pandemic, when districts and countries throughout the world imposed stringent masking mandates. Now, more than three years since the start of the pandemic, the amassed studies that have investigated the use of masks to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (or other pathogens) have led to conclusions that are largely inconsistent and contradictory. There is no statistically significant or unambiguous scientific evidence to justify mandatory masking for general, healthy populations with the intention of lessening the viral spread. Even if mask wearing could potentially reduce the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in individual cases, this needs to be balanced against the physical, psychological and social harms associated with forced mask wearing, not to mention the negative impact of innumerable disposed masks entering our fragile environment. Given the lack of unequivocal scientific proof that masks have any effect on reducing transmission, together with the evident harms to people and the environment through the use of masks, it is our opinion that the mandatory use of face masks in the general population is unjustifiable and must be abandoned in future pandemic countermeasures policies.

Contact dermatitis caused by prevention measures during the COVID-19 pandemic: a narrative review

Introduction

During the outbreak of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), health care workers wore personal protective equipment including masks, gloves and goggles for a long time. In order to reduce the transmission routes of the virus, public places were sprayed with disinfectant. Moreover, the body, hands and clothing were frequently disinfected and washed for hygiene purposes. Studies have shown that these practices could easily irritate the skin and damage the skin barrier. Long-term irritation or exposure to allergens may lead to the occurrence of contact dermatitis (CD).

Methods

Subject headings were searched via the National Library of Medicine (PubMed) and web of science databases: COVID-19; contact dermatitis; adverse skin reaction; PPE; dermatitis; mask; glory; hand hygiene, disinfection; face shield; goggle; protect cloth. A total of 246 and 646 articles were retrieved from the two databases, respectively. 402 articles remained after removing duplicates. Reviews, non-English articles, articles that could not be accessed to read or did not conform to our topic were excluded. Finally, a total of 32 cross-sectional studies, 9 case reports and 2 randomized controlled trials were included.

Discussion

This article reviews reports of CD caused by various prevention and hygiene measures during the COVID-19 pandemic. The amount of skin damage caused by COVID-19 prevention measures could be decreased by improved education about skin management.

Measuring the quantity of harmful volatile organic compounds inhaled through masks

An increase in the concentration of environmental particulate matter and the spread of the COVID-19 virus have dramatically increased our time spent wearing masks. If harmful chemicals are released from these masks, there may be harmful effects on human health. In this study, the concentration of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emitted from some commonly used masks was assessed qualitatively and quantitatively under diverse conditions (including different mask material types, time between opening the product and wearing, and mask temperature). In KF94 masks, 1-methoxy-2-propanol (221 ± 356 µg m-3), N,N-dimethylacetamide (601 ± 450 µg m-3), n-hexane (268 ± 349 µg m-3), and 2-butanone (160 ± 244 µg m-3) were detected at concentrations 22.9-147 times higher than those found in masks made from other materials, such as cotton and other functional fabrics. In addition, in KF94 masks, the total VOC (TVOC) released amounted to 3730 ± 1331 µg m-3, about 14 times more than that released by the cotton masks (267.5 ± 51.6 µg m-3). In some KF94 masks, TVOC concentration reached over 4000 µg m-3, posing a risk to human health (based on indoor air quality guidelines established by the German Environment Agency). Notably, 30 min after KF94 masks were removed from their packaging, TVOC concentrations decreased by about 80% from their initial levels to 724 ± 5.86 µg m-3; furthermore, 6 h after removal, TVOC concentrations were found to be less than 200 µg m-3. When the temperature of the KF94 masks was raised to 40 oC, TVOC concentrations increased by 119-299%. Since the types and concentrations of VOCs that will be inhaled by mask wearers vary depending on the mask use conditions, it is necessary to comply with safe mask wearing conditions.

Formaldehyde aggravates allergic contact dermatitis by facilitating NLRP3 inflammasome activation in macrophages

Formaldehyde (FA) is known to be an environmental pollutant and contact sensitizer at 1 % or 2 % concentrations, which can induce inflammatory diseases such as allergic contact dermatitis (ACD). However, the aggravative effects of FA on ACD at legitimate low concentrations in cosmetics have not been studied. The activation of NOD-, LRR- and pyrin domain-containing protein 3 (NLRP3) inflammasome in ACD was recently identified, and the inflammatory responses were attenuated by NLRP3 inhibition. Since non-cytotoxic concentrations of FA at 50 and 100 μM were found to reinforce inflammatory responses in macrophages, the 0.05 % low concentration of FA was applied to ACD mice induced by 2,4-dinitro-1-fluorobenzene. FA significantly exacerbated inflammatory responses and NLRP3 inflammasome activation, which was confirmed in RAW264.7 macrophages treated with FA at 50 and 100 μM in vitro. Induction of mitochondrial reactive oxygen species, the common activation signal for NLRP3 inflammasome, was also observed in FA-treated macrophages. Inhibition of NLRP3 by MCC950 significantly attenuated the NLRP3 inflammasome activation induced by 100 μM FA in vitro and alleviated FA-enhanced inflammatory responses in ACD mice. These results not only demonstrated that FA was able to aggravate the inflammatory responses of ACD by facilitating NLRP3 inflammasome activation in macrophages, which was likely to play important roles in FA-related sensitization, but also indicated that NLRP3 could be targeted to relieve FA-induced inflammation.

Occupational Skin Dermatitis among Healthcare Workers Associated with the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Review of the Literature

The skin is the outermost layer of the human body and is continually exposed to numerous external stimuli, which can cause unwanted skin irritation. Occupational skin diseases are the most prevalent form of work-related illness and are found in a variety of sectors, particularly healthcare. During the recent COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare professionals experienced a variety of unexpected, unusual occupational skin diseases associated with COVID-19-engaged employment. Because the clinical characteristics of these types of skin inflammation are unique, this review focuses on the characteristics of a large category of occupational workers, namely COVID-19-engaged healthcare professionals. Furthermore, we examined the potential pathogeneses of occupational skin disorders associated with COVID-19-engaged labor, as well as different preventative methods.

Dynamic variation and inhalation exposure of organophosphates esters and phthalic acid esters in face masks

The coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) has posed a huge global health threat since December 2019. Wearing face masks is known as an effective measure for controlling the wide spread of COVID-19 and its variants. But on the other hand, face masks could be a potential source of organophosphate esters (OPEs) and phthalic acid esters (PAEs) as they are extensively added in masks. However, knowledge associated with the occurrence as well as inhalation risks of OPEs and PAEs in masks is limited. In this study, OPEs and PAEs were determined in different types of mask samples collected from the local market. OPEs and PAEs were detected in mask samples ranging from 36.7 to 855 ng/g, and from 251 to 3830 ng/g, respectively. Relatively lower OPEs and PAEs concentrations were observed in disposable mask for toddlers. Simulated inhalation experiment indicated that the mass loss of OPEs and PAEs was 136 and 3910 ng/mask in disposable masks, 71.9 and 763 ng/mask in disposable mask for toddlers, 924 and 1020 ng/mask in N95 mask after 12 h, respectively. Significantly negative correlations were exhibited between the decrement of OPEs in masks and the increment of OPEs in corresponding polyurethane foams (PUFs) during the course, elucidating OPEs released from masks could be well captured by PUFs. With regard to the variation over time, predominant OPE and PAE analogues showed semblable release and absorption tendency in mask and corresponding PUF. Inhalation exposure risk of OPEs and PAEs was estimated based on the increment of pollutants in PUF. The estimated daily intakes (EDIs), hazard index (HI) and carcinogenic risk (CR) were also calculated and they were within the threshold levels. This study provides the evidence of OPEs and PAEs releasing from the face masks during wearing and unveiled a potential source of OPEs and PAEs exposure to humans.

The face behind the Covid-19 mask - A comprehensive review

The threat of epidemic outbreaks like SARS-CoV-2 is growing owing to the exponential growth of the global population and the continual increase in human mobility. Personal protection against viral infections was enforced using ambient air filters, face masks, and other respiratory protective equipment. Available facemasks feature considerable variation in efficacy, materials usage and characteristic properties. Despite their widespread use and importance, face masks pose major potential threats due to the uncontrolled manufacture and disposal techniques. Improper solid waste management enables viral propagation and increases the volume of associated biomedical waste at an alarming rate. Polymers used in single-use face masks include a spectrum of chemical constituents: plasticisers and flame retardants leading to health-related issues over time. Despite ample research in this field, the efficacy of personal protective equipment and its impact post-disposal is yet to be explored satisfactorily. The following review assimilates information on the different forms of personal protective equipment currently in use. Proper waste management techniques pertaining to such special wastes have also been discussed. The study features a holistic overview of innovations made in face masks and their corresponding impact on human health and environment. Strategies with SDG3 and SDG12, outlining safe and proper disposal of solid waste, have also been discussed. Furthermore, employing the CFD paradigm, a 3D model of a face mask was created based on fluid flow during breathing techniques. Lastly, the review concludes with possible future advancements and promising research avenues in personal protective equipment.

Mask wearing on an HBCU campus during the COVID-19 pandemic

Objective: Young adults of age 18-29 years old account for the most COVID-19 cases in the US, and ethnic groups were affected disproportionately. Correctly wearing a face mask remains a critical intervention for COVID-19 mitigation. The study aimed to examine how well Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) residents adhered to mask wearing during the pandemic. Methods: We conducted an observational study on an urban HBCU campus and the neighborhoods in Maryland for 13 weeks in spring 2021. Results: Of 1926 (1126 on campus; 800 off campus) persons observed, 89.8% wore masks, with 83.5% covering their mouths and noses. The HBCU campus showed better mask adherence than neighborhoods (92.0% vs. 86.7%). The most common improper mask wearing was nose out, followed by only-on-chin. Cloth and surgical masks were worn the most. Conclusion: The HBCU campus and neighborhood settings presented a high rate of facemask use during the pandemic.

Topical non-pharmacological treatment of eczema: an Italian consensus

Eczematous diseases (contact dermatitis, atopic dermatitis, hand eczema) are among the most frequent findings in dermatological clinical practice. A large body of evidence exists on structural and functional skin barrier damage in eczematous diseases, and on the importance of interventions aimed to repair such damage. While there is substantial agreement on pharmacological treatment, more sparse data are available on role, indications and usefulness of topical non-pharmacological treatments, despite significant research and progress in the composition and technology of emollients, cleansers and barrier creams significantly changed and expanded the functional activities of these products. This often leads to inadequate prescription and/or use, which increase individual and social costs of the disease and make the products useless or, in some cases, even counterproductive. This consensus document, discussed and compiled in a series of meetings by a group of Italian dermatologists experienced in the field of eczematous diseases, summarizes epidemiology and clinical features of the nosological entities of the "eczema family", illustrates the chemical/biochemical structure of emollients, cleansers and barrier creams, and aims to help physicians to exploit the full potential of available products, by providing a detailed but practical guide on characteristics, indications and correct use of non-pharmacological treatments currently available for eczematous diseases.

Free formaldehyde in non-medical face masks purchased from the Japanese market since the COVID-19 outbreak

Since the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic began, people have been wearing face masks for many hours every day. As these face masks are in contact with the skin, it is important to pay more attention to their quality and safety. This study examined the concentration of free formaldehyde in 90 non-medical face masks and related products (33 nonwoven, 30 woven cloth, 12 polyurethane, and 15 related products) because formaldehyde is a common contact allergen in textile products. For products consisting of mixed materials, each material was sampled, resulting in 103 samples for analysis. Free formaldehyde (34-239 μg/g) was found in three cloth masks, which consisted of cotton and polyester, with antibacterial and antiviral labeling. It was confirmed that the detected formaldehyde originated from the mask-finishing treatment by a hydrochloric acid extraction discrimination test. These masks may elicit contact dermatitis if the consumers have already been sensitized to formaldehyde. However, the risk of contact dermatitis caused by formaldehyde in masks may be considered low since the frequency of formaldehyde detection in masks in Japan is low.

Contact allergy to and allergic contact dermatitis from formaldehyde and -releasers: A clinical review and update

This review aims to provide a clinically useful update regarding the role of formaldehyde (FA) and its five main releasers (FRs) quaternium-15, diazolidinyl urea, DMDM hydantoin, imidazolidinyl urea and 2-bromo-2-nitropropane-1,3-diol (bronopol) in contact allergy and allergic contact dermatitis. These ubiquitous preservatives are still often, and sometimes undeclared, present in cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, household detergents and chemical (industrial) products. In Europe, the use of free FA and quaternium-15 in cosmetics is forbidden and contact allergy rates have been found to be stable to decreasing. However, FA/FRs still readily provoke localized (e.g., facial/hand), airborne and generalized dermatitis, and may also complicate atopic and stasis dermatitis, or result in nummular dermatitis. Seborrheic-, rosacea- and impetigo-like dermatitis have recently been reported. For a correct diagnosis, FA 2% aq. (0.60 mg/cm² ) should be used, and particularly the FRs bronopol 0.5% pet. and diazolidinyl urea 2% should be patch tested separately in a baseline series. If sensitization to FA occurs, both FA and FRs should preferably be avoided, except perhaps for bronopol in case it tests negatively. If a patient reacts to one or more FRs (such as bronopol, or diazolidinyl/imidazolidinyl urea), but not to FA, then the specific FR(s) should be avoided. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Novel insights into contact dermatitis

Contact dermatitis is a common disease, caused by repeated skin contact to contact allergens or irritants, resulting in allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) and/or irritant contact dermatitis. Attempts have been made to identify biomarkers to distinguish irritant and allergic patch test reactions, which could aid diagnosis. Some promising candidates have recently been identified, but verification and validation in clinical cases still need to be done. New causes of ACD are constantly recognized. In this review, 10 new contact allergens from recent years, were identified, several relating to anti-age products. Frequent allergens causing considerable morbidity in the population such as the preservative methylisothiazolinone (MI) have been regulated in EU. A significant drop in cases has been seen, while high rates are still occurring in other areas such as North America. Other frequent causes are fragrance allergens especially widely used terpenes and acrylates used in medical devises for control of diabetes. These represent unsolved problems. Recent advances in immunology have opened for a better understanding of the complexity of contact dermatitis, especially ACD. The disease may be more heterogenous that previous understood with several subtypes. With the rapidly evolving molecular understanding of the disease, the potential for development of new drugs for personalized treatment of contact dermatitis is considerable.

Impact in Contact Dermatitis during and after SARS-CoV2 Pandemic

Purpose of the review

Due to the recent COVID-19 pandemic, several skin conditions have emerged due to the preventive measures adopted by both health care workers and the general population against SARS-CoV-2. Above all, wearing of personal protective equipment, frequent hand-washing and disinfecting of surfaces have resulted in an increased risk of irritant or allergic contact dermatitis. The aim of this review is to investigate contact dermatitis associated with COVID-19 pandemic period.

Recent findings

There is a real evidence of the rising prevalence of irritant and allergic contact dermatitis in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The most commonly recorded symptoms are dryness, itch and redness of the skin. Nasal bridge, cheeks, forehead and hands represent the mainly affected skin sites.

Summary

Contact dermatitis lesions may appear as a result of various recommendations to prevent transmission of COVID-19. Procedures to alleviate pressure and friction, gentle skin care and adequate moisturizing, have been identified as important preventive strategies for contact dermatitis related to personal protective equipment and personal hygiene measures.

Contact dermatitis due to personal protective equipment use and hygiene practices during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review of case reports

BACKGROUND

Prolonged use of personal protective equipment (PPE) may lead to contact dermatitis during the coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic. This paper aims to identify the causative factors of contact dermatitis from PPE and hygiene practices.

METHODS

The search was conducted adhering to PRISMA 2020 guidelines. A Delphi process was employed to ensure that the aims of this study were met. PubMed and Web of Science databases were systematically searched through September 12, 2021, using search terms: Contact dermatitis, case report, covid-19. The findings were tabulated as author/year, gender, age, presentation, cause, dermatological diagnosis, testing modality, provided treatment, symptom resolution (time in days), prognosis, and follow-up.

RESULTS

The mean age of all individuals was 29.75 years, with 75% females. All cases presented with erythema, with 62.5% reporting pruritus and 37.5% reporting burning facial symptoms. Surgical masks and hand-hygiene products (37.5%) were the most commonly reported causative agent with 25% due to KN95/FFP type 2 use. Allergic contact dermatitis (50%) and irritant contact dermatitis (25%) were common diagnoses. Treatments included creams, emollients, and desloratadine, with restriction of irritant-causing factors. The prognosis was generally good among the cases, with 62.5% presenting complete resolution within a week and 12.5% showing moderate improvement at the fourth month after discontinuing use.

CONCLUSION

This study finds pertinent links between PPE use and contact dermatitis during the COVID-19 pandemic. While many cases are bound to go underreported in literature, well-designed, large-scale studies in the future may help promote these associations in a more comprehensive manner.

Release of tens of thousands of microfibers from discarded face masks under simulated environmental conditions

While mechanical abrasion by water and sediment is a primary and critical step in weathering process, the upsurge of discarded face masks will undoubtedly become a potential source of micro-/nanofibers owing to the spread of novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pneumonia. However, effects of mechanical abrasion on discarded face masks have neither been seriously addressed nor understood. Therefore, we conducted a simulated experiment to explore abundance, size distribution and morphology of microfibers released from common, surgical and face filtering piece (FFP) masks after mechanical abrasion. Technologies such as Fourier transform infrared spectrometry, fluorescence microscopy, scanning electron microscopy, and confocal laser scanning microscopy were used. Results showed that the abundance of released microfibers followed order of surgical > common > FFP in both water and sediment environments, and the maximum abundance reached 272 ± 12.49 items per square centimeter of mask (items·cm^-2) after sediment abrasion. Taking surgical mask for further investigation, the length of released fiber was observed to vary from 47.78 μm to 3.93 mm, and 72.41-89.58% of the total number of released microfibers fell in the range of 0.1-1 mm. However, microfibers with a very small length (1-100 μm) can occupy 0.09-13.59% of the total number of released fibers in sediment environment. The roughness of fiber surface after sediment abrasion was successively increased. Furthermore, the morphology analysis showed significant changes with countless cracks and many prominent protrusions on fiber surface after sediment abrasion. The cracks and protrusions may further accelerate mask decomposition, thereby potentially resulting in the adsorption of other contaminants and the release of self-containing chemicals. This study provides a valuable database of microfibers released from discarded face masks at the primary but critical stage, and further contributes knowledge on environmental impact of discarded personal protective equipment due to COVID-19.

A critical synthesis of current peer-reviewed literature on the environmental and human health impacts of COVID-19 PPE litter: New findings and next steps

Since the emergence of Coronavirus disease (COVID-19), the threat of plastic waste pollution has grown exponentially, with a strong attention on the environmental and human health consequences of millions of personal protective equipment (PPE) (e.g., face masks, shields, gloves, and wipes) being used and discarded. In response, a massive research effort has been launched to understand, characterize, and estimate the exposure risks of PPE associated contaminants. While the number of studies examining the impacts of PPE is increasing, this review aimed to provide a quick update on the research conducted to date of this topic, as well as to identify priorities for future research. Specifically, we analyzed recent global peer-reviewed articles on PPE to synthesize methods, control measures, and documented evidence to (1) investigate the discarded PPE in a variety of environments; (2) determine the microplastics discharge in the aquatic environment; (3) examine the intentionally or unintentionally added chemicals in the production of PPE; and (4) assess potential human health hazards and exposure pathways. Despite progress, more research is needed in the future to fully understand the chemical emissions from PPE degradation mechanisms (mechanical, chemical, and biological), as well as the magnitude and density of PPE pollution in the environment.

Environmental hazard of polypropylene microplastics from disposable medical masks: acute toxicity towards Daphnia magna and current knowledge on other polypropylene microplastics

The COVID-19 pandemic has increased the use of disposable plastics, including medical masks, which have become a necessity in our daily lives. As these are often improperly disposed of, they represent an important potential source of microplastics in the environment. We prepared microplastics from polypropylene medical masks and characterised their size, shape, organic chemical leaching, and acute toxicity to the planktonic crustacean Daphnia magna. The three layers of the masks were separately milled and characterised. Each of the inner frontal, middle filtering, and outer layers yielded different types of microplastics: fibres were obtained from the inner and outer layer, but irregular fragments from the middle layer. The shape of the obtained microplastics differed from the initial fibrous structure of the intact medical mask layers, which indicates that the material is deformed during cryo-milling. The chemical compositions of plastics-associated chemicals also varied between the different layers. Typically, the inner layer contained more chemicals related to antimicrobial function and flavouring. The other two layers also contained antioxidants and their degradation products, plasticisers, cross-linking agents, antistatic agents, lubricants, and non-ionic surfactants. An acute study with D. magna showed that these microplastics do not cause immobility but do physically interact with the daphnids. Further long-term studies with these microplastics are needed using a suite of test organisms. Indeed, studies with other polypropylene microplastics have shown numerous adverse effects on other organisms at concentrations that have already been reported in the environment. Further efforts should be made to investigate the environmental hazards of polypropylene microplastics from medical masks and how to handle this new source of environmental burden.

PLEASE CHECK THE SI WORD DOCUMENT THE AUTHORS ARE NOT LISTED THERE I CANNOT EDIT THAT FILE PLEASE ADD THE AUTHORS SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s43591-021-00020-0.

Dermatological manifestations associated with COVID-19: A comprehensive review of the current knowledge

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) has become a significant health problem globally. The virus has spread widely and become a global pandemic. The pathophysiology for SARS-CoV-2 has not been explained clearly. It has been associated with several multiorgan symptoms, among which its dermatological manifestations are of great interest. Primarily, there has been no report of skin features among COVID-19 patients. Nevertheless, recently there have been several reports regarding COVID-19 patients who presented with cutaneous manifestations. In the current review, we focus on the various cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19 infection.

Occupational Dermatoses Related to Personal Protective Equipment Used During the COVID-19 Pandemic

The recent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to the dramatic increase in use of personal protective equipment (PPE) among health care providers and the general public. Herein the authors discuss the various occupational dermatoses including allergic and irritant contact dermatitis, acne, seborrheic dermatitis, and rosacea related to frequent handwashing, disinfecting of surfaces, and prolonged wear of various PPE including face masks, gloves, and gowns. The authors provide an overview of published PPE-associated occupational dermatoses during the COVID-19 pandemic and also discuss prevention strategies and treatment options to help patients with these complaints.

Masks use and facial dermatitis during COVID-19 outbreak: is there a difference between CE and non-CE approved masks? Multi-center, real-life data from a large Italian cohort

BACKGROUND

During the recent COVID-19 outbreak, masks became mandatory and shortages frequent, therefore the prevalence of non-CE (European Conformity Mark) approved masks increased in the general population. We aimed to quantify the prevalence of mask-related cutaneous side effects and the differences between CE and non-CE approved masks.

METHODS

In this multicenter prospective observational study conducted from March 20, 2020 to May 12, 2020(during and after quarantine), patients attending emergency departments for a dermatological consult were clinically assessed and their masks were inspected to detect CE marks and UNI (Italian National Unification Entity) norms. Patients with history of facial dermatoses or under current treatment for facial dermatoses were excluded.

RESULTS

We enrolled 412 patients (318 during quarantine and 94 after quarantine). CE-approved masks were observed 52.8% vs. 24.5%, whilst subsets of non-CE approved masks were 9.7% vs. 14.9% (Personal protective equipment (PPE)-masks), 16.4% vs. 12.8% (surgical masks [SM]), and 21.1% vs. 47.9%(non-PPE) and (non-SM masks), respectively during and after quarantine. Remarkably, non-CE-approved masks resulted in patients displaying a statistically significant higher incidence of facial dermatoses and irritant contact dermatitis compared to CE-approved masks, and these differences were mainly driven by non-PPE non-SM masks. Comparing quarantine and after quarantine periods, no statistically significant differences were found for CE-approved masks, whilst differences were detected in non-CE-approved masks regarding incidence of facial dermatoses (P<0.0001)and irritant contact dermatitis (P=0.0041).

CONCLUSIONS

Masks are essential to prevent COVID-19 but at the same time higher awareness regarding mask specifications should be promoted in the general population. Non-PPE and non-SM masks should undergo more rigorous testing to prevent the occurrence of cutaneous side effects and future patients' lawsuit damages.

Occupational Dermatitis and Urticaria

Occupational contact dermatitis is the most common occupational skin disease (OSD), and most of them are irritant in nature. There is less information available about contact urticaria than contact dermatitis. There are several strategies to prevent OSD, although workplace studies suggest there are gaps in their use in the workplace. Because early detection leads to improved outcomes, screening for dermatitis in industries such as health care would be useful. Both diagnosis and management involve 2 components: the actual disease diagnosis and medical treatment and the work-relatedness and management of the workplace to reduce exposures.

Mask-induced dermatoses during the COVID-19 pandemic: a questionnaire-based study in 12 Korean hospitals

BACKGROUND

During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, various adverse skin reactions to long-term mask wearing have been reported.

AIM

To assess the clinical features of mask-induced dermatoses and to recommend prevention and treatment options.

METHODS

From April to August 2020, questionnaires including topics such as demographic information, pre-existing skin disorders, reported mask-related symptoms, daily mask-wearing duration and frequency, types of masks used and whether the participant was a healthcare worker, were distributed to patients in 12 hospitals. Dermatologists assessed skin lesions, confirmed diagnosis and recorded treatments.

RESULTS

Itchiness was the most frequent symptom, mostly affecting the cheeks. The most common skin disease was new-onset contact dermatitis (33.94%), followed by new-onset acne (16.97%) and worsening of pre-existing acne (16.97%). Daily wearing of masks was significantly (P = 0.02) associated with new-onset contact dermatitis. More than half of patients with pre-existing skin problems experienced disease worsening while wearing masks. Longer duration of wearing (> 6 h/day, P = 0.04) and use of cotton masks (P < 0.001) significantly increased acne flare-up. Healthcare workers had a higher incidence of skin disease. Skin lesions were generally mild and well tolerated with topical treatment. The study had some limitations: the effect of seasonal characteristics and other risk factors were not assessed, and the patients were visiting dermatological clinics and had interest in their skin status, thus, there may have been selection bias.

CONCLUSION

Mask-induced/-triggered dermatoses contribute to increase the dermatological burden during the pandemic.

"Face mask dermatitis" due to compulsory facial masks during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: data from 550 health care and non-health care workers in Germany

Background

During the COVID-19 pandemic, wearing face masks is mandatory not only for health care workers (HCWs) but also for the general population in many countries around the globe.

Objectives

The aim of the study was to investigate the onset of adverse facial skin reactions due to compulsory face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic in HCWs and non-HCWs, and draw awareness of this new dermatological condition and its preventive measures.

Materials & Methods

A questionnaire was distributed to 550 patients and HCWs from the Department of Dermatology and Allergy of the University Hospital Munich (LMU), Germany. Participants were surveyed regarding mask type, duration of usage and adverse facial skin reactions. Information on symptoms and the use of skin care products and topical drugs were retrieved.

Results

The duration of wearing masks showed a significant impact on the prevalence of symptoms (p < 0.001). Type IV hypersensitivity was significantly more likely in participants with symptoms compared to those without symptoms (p = 0.001), whereas no increase in symptoms was observed in participants with atopic diathesis. HCWs used facial skin care products significantly more often than non-HCWs (p = 0.001).

Conclusion

Preventive and therapeutic measures should be established in order to avoid “face mask dermatitis”, especially for people with underlying risk factors.

What Is New in Occupational Allergic Contact Dermatitis in the Year of the COVID Pandemic?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This article aims to summarize some recent trends in occupational allergic contact dermatitis (ACD), including dermatitis related to pandemic-level personal protective equipment in healthcare workers, hazards patients may experience when working from home, and occupational perspectives on the recent American Contact Dermatitis Society (ACDS) allergens of the year and ACDS Core Allergen Series updates.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent ACDS Allergens of the Year may be particularly relevant to healthcare workers, including isobornyl acrylate, which is present in glucose sensors and propylene glycol present in hand cleansers and disinfectants. Lavender, limonene, and linalool, all of which are new additions to the ACDS Core Allergen Series, have been reported as causes for occupational ACD in massage therapists and aromatherapists. Isothiazolinone allergy continues to rise in both consumer and occupational settings. Finally, the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a wave of occupational ACD in healthcare workers to personal protective equipment, and revealed new potential allergens for individuals working from home. Occupational allergic contact dermatitis continues to exert a significant occupational disease burden. Remaining aware of the current trends in allergens may allow for earlier recognition, diagnosis, and treatment, subsequently helping our patients to work in healthier and safer environments.

COVID-19 and dermatological personal protective equipment considerations

Cutaneous injury and irritation among health care workers has substantially risen during the COVID-19 pandemic. In a field already laden with skin-induced injury and irritation due to high levels of handwashing and glove wearing, increases have been reported in handwashing-induced xerosis, irritant dermatitis, and contact dermatitis from N95 respirators and other surgical masks. Masks, goggles, face shields, and gloves all potentially create abrasions from long hours of use, leading to itching, pain, and aggravation of underlying skin conditions. Personal protective equipment (PPE)-related skin injury can be serious, and the American Academy of Dermatology has released recommendations on preventing and treating occupationally induced dermatologic conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic. These are reviewed and discussed in conjunction with overarching guidelines for mitigating the spread of the virus.

Dermatological findings in patients admitting to dermatology clinic after using face masks during Covid-19 pandemia: A new health problem

In the present study, the purpose was to evaluate the presence of dermatological symptoms and the effects of mask use on existing dermatological diseases associated with face in patients admitting with any dermatological disease. The present study consisted of 150 patients, including 91 volunteering women and 59 men, admitting to our dermatology clinic with any dermatological symptoms. The presence of symptoms, such as itching, rash, drying and peeling, discomfort, redness, burning, pain, swelling, acne, oily skin symptoms because of mask use, and previous history of facial dermatological disease, whether this disease increased with the use of mask, were questioned. The diagnosis made after dermatological examination and the dermatological examination findings were evaluated with the results of the survey. The most common finding in all patients after mask use was itching with a rate of 64.7%. Similar rates were detected for other symptoms. A significant increase was detected in the severity of acneiform and inflammatory dermatosis after the use of masks (P < .05). Our study showed that long-term mask use caused primary skin symptoms, such as itching, redness, rash, dryness and peeling, burning, oily skin, and acne formation in individuals who have dermatological diseases, and also increased the existing dermatological facial diseases. Therefore, it should be recommended to use water-based moisturizers as it may have a barrier effect on the faces of individuals who use a face mask and have any facial dermatosis, and patients should be closely monitored for skin diseases on the face.

COVID-19 related masks increase severity of both acne (maskne) and rosacea (mask rosacea): Multi-center, real-life, telemedical, and observational prospective study

Masks are essential for COVID‐19 prevention, but recently they were suggested to modify cutaneous facial microenvironment and trigger facial dermatoses. To evaluate mask‐related rosacea and acne (maskne) in untreated patients during lockdown. In this multi‐center, real‐life, observational prospective study, we enrolled stable, untreated acne and rosacea patients that wore masks during lockdown at least 6 h/day. They underwent two teledermatological consultations, at the baseline and after 6 weeks. Clinical, pharmacological, and psychological data were recorded. A total 66 patients, 30 (median age: 34.0 [30.25‐29.75] yoa) with acne and 36 patients (median age: 48 [43‐54] years) with rosacea, were enrolled in this study. After 6 weeks of mask and quarantine, patients with acne displayed an increased Global Acne Grading Scale (GAGS) score in mask‐related areas (P < .0001). Likewise, after 6 weeks of mask and quarantine, patients with rosacea displayed a worsen in both physican (P < .0001) and patient (P < .0001) reported outcomes. Remarkably, patients reported also a statistically significant decrease in their quality of life (P < .0001). Masks appear to trigger both acne and rosacea flares. Additional studies are needed to generate evidence and inform clinical decision‐making.

Mask-induced Koebner phenomenon and its clinical phenotypes: A multicenter, real-life study focusing on 873 dermatological consultations during COVID-19 pandemics

During COVID-19 pandemic, wearing masks for prevention became mandatory but evidence suggest that is also detrimental for skin. Although facial dermatoses due to masks increase in both healthcare workers and general population, a pathogenetic hypothesis remains still elusive. We aimed to evaluate the prevalence of dermatological consultations due to Koebner triggered dermatoses In this prospective, multicenter, real life study carried out in Italy from March 11th to December 11th 2020 during COVID-19 pandemics, dermatological consultations (in-person and telemedicine) to study the prevalence of Koebner (KB) phenomenon due to masks were evaluated. Boyd and Nelder classification was adopted for Koebner phenomenon and Bizzozero's for KB intensity. A total of 229/873 (26.2%) dermatological consultations were KB triggered dermatoses and lesions were located in mask-covered ear area (76 [33.2%]), malar area (73 [31.8%]), perioral area (53 [23.1%]), and nose (27 [11.8%]). The first KB category grouped 142 patients (psoriasis, vitiligo, maskne, and mask rosacea), the second one 24 (warts, molluscum contagiosum, and impetigo), the third one 46 (atopic dermatitis), and the fourth one 17 (eczema). Among previously KB negative psoriatic patients that became KB positive, 9/13 (69.2%) had discontinued or modified the prescribed antipsoriatic treatment. Mask-related Koebner phenomenon is an important clinical sign to orient clinician's therapeutic protocols during COVID-19 pandemic, especially in patients with psoriasis.

Antiseptic drugs and disinfectants with special scrutiny of COVID-19 pandemic related side effects

This review covers publications during the period of January 2020 to December 2020 on adverse reactions to antiseptic drugs and disinfectants. Specific agents discussed are alcohols (ethanol, isopropanol), aldehydes (formaldehyde), guanidines (chlorhexidine, polyhexamethylene guanidine, and polyhexamethylene biguanidine), benzalkonium compounds, triclocarban, povidone-iodine, and sodium hypochlorite. No new data were identified for glutaraldehyde, cetrimide, ethylene oxide, tosylchloramide, triclosan, iodine, and phenolic compounds. The use of antiseptic drugs and disinfectants has been considerably increased during 2020 in a variety of medical and occupational settings, in commerce and gastronomy, as well as in the household, due to their antiviral properties against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Exposure was additionally increased by widespread misinformation on social media for non-evidence based disinfectant use, even including ingestion or injection, as well as by questionable practices such as environmental spraying or disinfectant gates. Irritant effects on the respiratory system, skin and eyes were the most common adverse reaction, while the widespread and sometimes excessive use led to increased reports of poisonings, as well as cases of disinfectant adulteration including dilution into ineffective concentrations or addition of toxic agents such as methanol.

Does Wearing a Face Mask During the COVID-19 Pandemic Increase the Incidence of Dermatological Conditions in Health Care Workers? Narrative Literature Review

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 is a health emergency. SARS-CoV-2 was discovered in Wuhan (Hubei Province, China) and has rapidly spread worldwide, leaving no country untouched. COVID-19 is a respiratory infection characterized by a pneumonia of unknown etiology. It is transmitted through respiratory droplets; for example: through breathing, talking, and coughing. Transmission of the virus is high. Health care workers play important roles in helping those affected by COVID-19; this could not be done without the use of personal protective equipment (PPE). PPE involves the use of goggles, masks, gloves, and gowns and is known to reduce COVID-19 transmission; however, multiple reports of skin disease and damage associated with occupational mask-wearing have emerged.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to review the literature for newly emerging dermatological conditions as a result of occupational mask-wearing during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

A narrative review of new reports of dermatological conditions associated with occupational mask-wearing was carried out in May 2020 by referencing keywords including: "covid mask dermatology," "covid dermatological damage," "covid mask skin," "covid N95 mask damage," and "covid mask skin damage" from PubMed, supplemented by searches on both Google Scholar and ResearchGate. A total of 287 articles were found, of which 40 were successfully included in this study, and an additional 7 were selected from the reference lists of these 40 articles. The findings were tabulated and analyzed under the following headings: dermatological diagnosis, causes, and management.

RESULTS

Qualitative analysis of the reviewed data was carried out. A number of dermatological conditions were found to increasingly occur owing to prolonged and frequent use of face masks. Pressure-related injuries were often the most serious complaint; recommendations to reduce this type of injury include the use of hydrocolloid dressings, plastic handles, education, and regular moisturization. Innovation in PPE as well as services, such as virtual clinics, need to be advanced to protect the welfare of health care staff.

CONCLUSIONS

In these unprecedented times, PPE has been an effective barrier to the transmission of COVID-19 among health care workers. This has allowed health care workers to provide care to patients, with minimal risk. However, our findings suggest that despite the obvious benefits of using face masks to protect the respiratory system, there are also considerable health consequences to the skin. Future research studies are required to focus on improving face masks to ensure both the protection of the respiratory system as well as skin care, which, according to our study, has been overlooked.

Prevention and occupational hazards for the skin during COVID-19 pandemic

The life of medical specialists worldwide has dramatically changed due to the spread of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Health care professionals (HCPs) have personally faced the outbreak by being on the first line of the battlefield with the disease and, as such, compose a significant number of people who have contracted COVID-19. We propose a classification and discuss the pathophysiology, clinical findings, and treatments and prevention of the occupational skin hazards COVID-19 poses to HCPs. The multivariate pattern of occupational skin diseases during the COVID-19 pandemic can be classified into four subgroups: mechanical skin injury, moisture-associated skin damage, contact reactions, and exacerbation of preexisting dermatoses. The clinical pattern is versatile, and the most affected skin sites were the ones in contact with the protective equipment. Dermatologists should recognize the plethora of HCPs’ occupational skin reactions that are occurring during the COVID-19 pandemic and implement treatment and preventive strategies.

Cutaneous Manifestations in Adult Patients with COVID-19 and Dermatologic Conditions Related to the COVID-19 Pandemic in Health Care Workers

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

COVID-19 (coronavirus viral disease 2019), due to the novel SARS-CoV-2, may present with different types of cutaneous manifestations of varying pathophysiology. During the ongoing pandemic, publications reporting dermatologic findings in COVID-19 continue to emerge.

RECENT FINDINGS

Cutaneous vasculopathy and microthrombus-related changes including acral and sacral lesions, retiform purpura, livedo reticularis, and cutaneous vasculitis are notable findings in adult patients. Other exanthems include urticaria or angioedema, morbilliform/maculopapular exanthems, erythema multiforme, and vesicular eruptions. Increased recognition of these findings, especially those consistent with cutaneous microthrombi or vasculitis, is of particular importance. Additionally, occupational dermatologic disease related to extended personal protective equipment (PPE) use, such as skin damage and irritant or allergic contact dermatitis (ACD), represents another emerging problem amidst the pandemic. In this review, we highlight the various cutaneous manifestations associated with COVID-19 in adult patients and occupational dermatitis in health care workers (HCWs) caring for this patient population.