Pityriasis rosea in the Sudan

COVID-19 Skin Manifestations in Skin of Colour

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) skin manifestations have been increasingly reported in medical literature. Recent discussions have identified a lack of images of skin of color (SOC) patients with COVID-19 related skin findings despite people with skin of color being disproportionately affected with the disease. There have been calls to prioritize the identification of COVID-19 skin manifestations in patients with SOC and disseminate these findings. The objective of this article is to review the existing literature on COVID-19 skin manifestations and, where possible, discuss how they may present differently in patients with SOC. Further research is needed to allow primary care physicians and dermatologists to be aware of and easily identify patients with cutaneous findings that may be secondary to COVID-19. Patients presenting with idiopathic dermatologic manifestations should be considered for COVID-19 testing and follow public health guidelines for self-isolation.

Interventions for pityriasis rosea

BACKGROUND

Pityriasis rosea is a scaly, itchy rash that mainly affects young adults and lasts for 2 to 12 weeks. The effects of many available treatments are uncertain. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2007.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of interventions for the management of pityriasis rosea in any individual diagnosed by a medical practitioner.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated our searches of the following databases to October 2018: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS. We searched five trials registers. We also checked the reference lists of included and excluded studies, contacted trial authors, scanned the abstracts from major dermatology conference proceedings, and searched the CAB Abstracts database. We searched PubMed for adverse effects to November 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of interventions in pityriasis rosea. Treatment could be given in a single therapy or in combination. Eligible comparators were no treatment, placebo, vehicle only, another active compound, or placebo radiation treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by the Cochrane. Our key outcomes were good or excellent rash improvement within two weeks, rated separately by the participant and medical practitioner; serious adverse events; resolution of itch within two weeks (participant-rated); reduction in itch score within two weeks (participant-rated); and minor participant-reported adverse events not requiring withdrawal of the treatment.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 14 trials (761 participants). In general, risk of selection bias was unclear or low, but risk of performance bias and reporting bias was high for 21% of the studies. Participant age ranged from 2 to 60 years, and sex ratio was similar. Disease severity was measured by various severity indices, which the included studies did not categorise. Six studies were conducted in India, three in Iran, two in the Philippines, and one each in Pakistan, the USA, and China. The included studies were conducted in dermatology departments and a paediatric clinic. Study duration ranged from 5 to 26 months. Three studies were funded by drug manufacturers; most studies did not report their funding source. The included studies assessed macrolide antibiotics, an antiviral agent, phototherapy, steroids and antihistamine, and Chinese medicine. None of the studies measured participant-rated good or excellent rash improvement. All reported outcomes were assessed within two weeks of treatment, except for adverse effects, which were measured throughout treatment. There is probably no difference between oral clarithromycin and placebo in itch resolution (risk ratio (RR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 1.52; 1 study, 28 participants) or rash improvement (medical practitioner-rated) (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.44; 1 study, 60 participants). For this comparison, there were no serious adverse events (1 study, 60 participants); minor adverse events and reduction in itch score were not measured; and all evidence was of moderate quality. When compared with placebo, erythromycin may lead to increased rash improvement (medical practitioner-rated) (RR 4.02, 95% CI 0.28 to 56.61; 2 studies, 86 participants, low-quality evidence); however, the 95% CI indicates that the result may also be compatible with a benefit of placebo, and there may be little or no difference between treatments. Itch resolution was not measured, but one study measured reduction in itch score, which is probably larger with erythromycin (MD 3.95, 95% CI 3.37 to 4.53; 34 participants, moderate-quality evidence). In the same single, small trial, none of the participants had a serious adverse event, and there was no clear difference between groups in minor adverse events, which included gastrointestinal upset (RR 2.00, CI 0.20 to 20.04; moderate-quality evidence). Two trials compared oral azithromycin to placebo or vitamins. There is probably no difference between groups in itch resolution (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.48) or reduction in itch score (MD 0.04, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.43) (both outcomes based on one study; 70 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Low-quality evidence from two studies indicates there may be no difference between groups in rash improvement (medical practitioner-rated) (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.52 to 2.00; 119 participants). In these same two studies, no serious adverse events were reported, and there was no clear difference between groups in minor adverse events, specifically mild abdominal pain (RR 5.82, 95% CI 0.72 to 47.10; moderate-quality evidence). Acyclovir was compared to placebo, vitamins, or no treatment in three trials (all moderate-quality evidence). Based on one trial (21 participants), itch resolution is probably higher with placebo than with acyclovir (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.94); reduction in itch score was not measured. However, there is probably a significant difference between groups in rash improvement (medical practitioner-rated) in favour of acyclovir versus all comparators (RR 2.45, 95% CI 1.33 to 4.53; 3 studies, 141 participants). Based on the same three studies, there were no serious adverse events in either group, and there was probably no difference between groups in minor adverse events (only one participant in the placebo group experienced abdominal pain and diarrhoea). One trial compared acyclovir added to standard care (calamine lotion and oral cetirizine) versus standard care alone (24 participants). The addition of acyclovir may lead to increased itch resolution (RR 4.50, 95% CI 1.22 to 16.62) and reduction in itch score (MD 1.26, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.78) compared to standard care alone. Rash improvement (medical practitioner-rated) was not measured. The trial reported no serious adverse events in either group, and there may be no difference between groups in minor adverse events, such as headache (RR 7.00, 95% CI 0.40 to 122.44) (all results based on low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

When compared with placebo or no treatment, oral acyclovir probably leads to increased good or excellent, medical practitioner-rated rash improvement. However, evidence for the effect of acyclovir on itch was inconclusive. We found low- to moderate-quality evidence that erythromycin probably reduces itch more than placebo. Small study sizes, heterogeneity, and bias in blinding and selective reporting limited our conclusions. Further research is needed to investigate different dose regimens of acyclovir and the effect of antivirals on pityriasis rosea.

Pityriasis Rosea, Gianotti-Crosti Syndrome, Asymmetric Periflexural Exanthem, Papular-Purpuric Gloves and Socks Syndrome, Eruptive Pseudoangiomatosis, and Eruptive Hypomelanosis: Do Their Epidemiological Data Substantiate Infectious Etiologies?

Many clinical and laboratory-based studies have been reported for skin rashes which may be due to viral infections, namely pityriasis rosea (PR), Gianotti-Crosti syndrome (GCS), asymmetric periflexural exanthem/unilateral laterothoracic exanthem (APE/ULE), papular-purpuric gloves and socks syndrome (PPGSS), and eruptive pseudo-angiomatosis (EP). Eruptive hypomelanosis (EH) is a newly discovered paraviral rash. Novel tools are now available to investigate the epidemiology of these rashes. To retrieve epidemiological data of these exanthema and analyze whether such substantiates or refutes infectious etiologies. We searched for articles published over the last 60 years and indexed by PubMed database. We then analyzed them for universality, demography, concurrent patients, temporal and spatial-temporal clustering, mini-epidemics, epidemics, and other clinical and geographical associations. Based on our criteria, we selected 55, 60, 29, 36, 20, and 4 articles for PR, GCS, APE/ULE, PPGSS, EP, and EH respectively. Universality or multiple-continental reports are found for all exanthema except EH. The ages of patients are compatible with infectious causes for PR, GCS, APE/ULE, and EH. Concurrent patients are reported for all. Significant patient clustering is demonstrated for PR and GCS. Mini-epidemics and epidemics have been reported for GCS, EP, and EH. The current epidemiological data supports, to a moderate extent, that PR, GCS, and APE could be caused by infectious agents. Support for PPGSS is marginal. Epidemiological evidences for infectious origins for EP and EH are inadequate. There might be growing epidemiological evidence to substantiate or to refute our findings in the future.

Gianotti-Crosti syndrome, pityriasis rosea, asymmetrical periflexural exanthem, unilateral mediothoracic exanthem, eruptive pseudoangiomatosis, and papular-purpuric gloves and socks syndrome: a brief review and arguments for diagnostic criteria

Several exanthems including Gianotti-Crosti syndrome, pityriasis rosea, asymmetrical periflexural exanthem, eruptive pseudoangiomatosis, and papular-purpuric gloves and socks syndrome are suspected to be caused by viruses. These viruses are potentially dangerous. Gianotti-Crosti syndrome is related to hepatitis B virus infection which is the commonest cause of hepatocellular carcinoma, and Epstein-Barr virus infection which is related to nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Pityriasis rosea has been suspected to be related to human herpesvirus 7 and 8 infections, with the significance of the former still largely unknown, and the latter being a known cause of Kaposi's sarcoma. Papular-purpuric gloves and socks syndrome is significantly associated with human B19 erythrovirus infection which can lead to aplastic anemia in individuals with congenital hemoglobinopathies, and when transmitted to pregnant women, can cause spontaneous abortions and congenital anomalies. With viral DNA sequence detection technologies, false positive results are common. We can no longer apply Koch's postulates to establish cause-effect relationships. Biological properties of some viruses including lifelong latent infection, asymptomatic shedding, and endogenous reactivation render virological results on various body tissues difficult to interpret. We might not be able to confirm or refute viral causes for these rashes in the near future. Owing to the relatively small number of patients, virological and epidemiology studies, and treatment trials usually recruit few study and control subjects. This leads to low statistical powers and thus results have little clinical significance. Moreover, studies with few patients are less likely to be accepted by mainstream dermatology journals, leading to publication bias. Aggregation of data by meta-analyses on many studies each with a small number of patients can theoretically elevate the power of the results. Techniques are also in place to compensate for publication bias. However, these are not currently feasible owing to different inclusion and exclusion criteria in clinical studies and treatment trials. The diagnoses of these rashes are based on clinical assessment. Investigations only serve to exclude important differential diagnoses. A wide spectrum of clinical features is seen, and clinical features can vary across different populations. The terminologies used to define these rashes are confusing, and even more so are the atypical forms and variants. Previously reported virological and epidemiological results for these rashes are conflicting in many aspects. The cause of such incongruence is unknown, but low homogeneity during diagnosis and subject recruitment might be one of the factors leading to these incongruent results. The establishment and proper validation of diagnostic criteria will facilitate clinical diagnosis, hasten recruitment into clinical studies, and allow results of different studies to be directly compared with each another. Meta-analyses and systematic reviews would be more valid. Diagnostic criteria also streamline clinical audits and surveillance of these diseases from community perspectives. However, over-dependence on diagnostic criteria in the face of conflicting clinical features is a potential pitfall. Clinical acumen and the experience of the clinicians cannot be replaced by diagnostic criteria. Diagnostic criteria should be validated and re-validated in response to the ever-changing manifestations of these intriguing rashes. We advocate the establishment and validation of diagnostic criteria of these rashes. We also encourage the ongoing conduction of studies with a small number of patients. However, for a wider purpose, these studies should recruit homogenous patient groups with a view towards future data aggregation.

Interventions for pityriasis rosea

BACKGROUND

Pityriasis rosea is a scaly rash that mainly affects young adults. It can be very itchy but most people recover within 2 to 12 weeks.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of interventions for pityriasis rosea.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register (December 2004), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials in The Cochrane Library (Issue 4, 2004), MEDLINE (1966 to January 2005), EMBASE (1976 to January 2005), LILACS (1982 to January 2005), BIOSIS Preview (1980 to June 2002), and ongoing trials databases. We scanned bibliographies of published studies, abstracts from dermatology conference proceedings, corresponded with trialists and contacted the pharmaceutical industry.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials evaluating interventions for pityriasis rosea.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors to retrieve missing data.

MAIN RESULTS

Three trials involving 148 people were included. One poor quality trial (23 people), compared intravenous glycyrrhizin and intravenous procaine. It found no significant difference between the two interventions for treating symptoms and rash. One fair quality trial (85 people), compared the oral antihistamine dexchlorpheniramine (4 mg), the oral steroid betamethasone (500 mcg), and a combination of betamethasone (250 mcg) and dexchlorpheniramine (2 mg). It found no significant difference in itch resolution at two weeks, as rated by the participants, between dexchlorpheniramine and betamethasone, and the combination of dexchlorpheniramine and betamethasone. However, both dexchlorpheniramine and betamethasone alone seem to be better at clearing rash than the combination of dexchlorpheniramine and betamethasone. These interventions were not compared with placebo. The small good quality trial (40 people) that compared oral erythromycin and placebo found that erythromycin was more effective than placebo in terms of rash improvement, as rated by the trialists, after two weeks (RR 13.00; 95% CI 1.91 to 88.64). It was also more effective in decreasing the itch score (difference of 3.95 points, 95% CI 3.37 to 4.53). No serious adverse effects were reported for the interventions. Two out of 17 people on oral erythromycin and 1 out of 17 on placebo reported minor gastrointestinal upset.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found inadequate evidence for efficacy for most treatments for pityriasis rosea. Oral erythromycin may be effective in treating the rash and decreasing the itch. However, this result should be treated with caution since it comes from only one small RCT. More research is necessary to evaluate the efficacy of erythromycin and other treatments.

Atypical presentations of pityriasis rosea: case presentations

Atypical cases of pityriasis rosea (PR) are fairly common and less readily recognized than typical eruptions. We present four patients for whom we believe atypical PR is the most likely diagnosis. A 33-year-old man had purpuric lesions bilaterally on the legs with classical rash on the trunk. A 28-year-old woman had intensely pruritic and urticarial lesions. A 10-year-old girl had hundreds of small papular lesions 1-3 mm in size. A pregnant woman aged 26 had oral haemorrhagic ulcers with classical PR eruption on her trunk. The oral ulcers erupted and remitted at the same time as the generalized eruption. We reviewed the literature and proposed a classification based on rash morphology, rash size, rash distribution, number of lesions, site of lesions, severity of symptoms and course of the eruption. We believe that it is difficult to make a clear division to define typical and atypical PR, and that it is important not to ascribe any unusual or atypical skin eruption with PR unless other dermatoses have been excluded.

An epidemiological study of pityriasis rosea in the Eastern Anatolia

The purpose of this study was to investigate the epidemiological features of pityriasis rosea (PR) in the Eastern Anatolia, Turkey. Three hundred ninety-one patients (214 females, 177 males) with PR seen during the years 1992-1995 were analyzed for annual incidence among dermatologic outpatients, sex, age, and distribution by month and year. The average annual incidence was 0.75 per 100 dermatologic patients. PR was reported to be slightly more common in women by margin of 1.2:1.0. Eighty-seven percent of the cases were between the ages of 10 and 39 years, with a peak in the 20-29 age group. The incidence of the disease was much higher in the rainy and snowy months. No declining incidence was observed over the years. Changes in incidence from year to year, though not great, were statistically significant.