Personal protective equipment induced facial dermatoses in healthcare workers managing Coronavirus disease 2019

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.

Fit evaluation of NIOSH approved N95 filtering facepiece respirators with various skin protectants: A pilot study

Widespread disease outbreaks can result in prolonged wear times of National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Approved N95 filtering facepiece respirators by healthcare personnel. Prolonged wear times of these devices can cause the development of various adverse facial skin conditions. Healthcare personnel have been reported to apply "skin protectants" to the face to reduce the pressure and friction of respirators. Because tight-fitting respirators rely on a good face seal to protect the wearer, it is important to understand if the fit is affected when skin protectants are used. This laboratory pilot study included 10 volunteers who performed quantitative fit tests to evaluate respirator fit while wearing skin protectants. Three N95 filtering facepiece respirator models and three skin protectants were evaluated. Three replicate fit tests were performed for each combination of subject, skin protectant (including a control condition of no protectant), and respirator model. Fit Factor (FF) was affected differently by the combination of the protectant type and respirator model. The main effects of the protectant type and respirator model were both significant (p < 0.001); additionally, their interaction was significant (p = 0.02), indicating FF is affected by the combined effects of the protectant type and respirator model. Compared to the control condition, using a bandage-type or surgical tape skin protectant decreased the odds of passing the fit test. Using a barrier cream skin protectant also decreased the odds of passing the fit test across all models compared to the control condition; however, the probability of passing a fit test was not statistically significantly different from the control condition (p = 0.174). These results imply that all three skin protectants reduced mean fit factors for all N95 filtering facepiece respirator models tested. The bandage-type and surgical tape skin protectants both reduced fit factors and passing rates to a greater degree than the barrier cream. Respirator users should follow respirator manufacturers' guidance on the use of skin protectants. If a skin protectant is to be worn with a tight-fitting respirator, the fit of the respirator should be evaluated with the skin protectant applied before use in the workplace.

Impact of personal protective equipment on patient safety and health care workers

Background

The study aims to assess the effect of personal protective equipment (PPE) on the physical and psychological well-being of health care workers (HCWs) and its impact on patient safety.

Methods

After ethical approval, a 14-point questionnaire was circulated offline and online among the HCWs of ours institute, who were involved in performing invasive procedures while wearing a PPE. The responses were analysed using the SPSS software version 26.

Results

Of 198 responses, the mean duration of PPE use was 4.6 ± 1.52 h. Seventy percent of respondents suggested <4 h of continuous use of PPE. Seventy-seven percent found difficulties during the procedures while wearing PPE and agreed to errors while performing a procedure. Poor visibility (95.5%), fogging (84.9%), communication difficulty (75.3%), sweating (74.2%), posture-related discomfort (56.1%) and poor concentration (51%) were major causes. Anxiety (39.9%) and fear of spreading an infection to the family (42.9%) were major psychological effects. Eighty percent of HCWs raised concern over the quality of PPE, N95 mask and eye protector. The HCWs felt the need to improve the quality of PPEs, use extra padding around the ears, sealing the N95 mask with adhesive tape, besides using sign language for communication for more safety. Fifty percent graded the procedure-related difficulty level >6 on a Likert scale of 1-10.

Conclusion

PPE-related discomfort is common among the HCWs and could contribute to errors during an invasive procedure. Efforts to alleviate the physical and psychological well-being of the HCWs will be essential for reducing procedural error while wearing a PPE.

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.

Dense 3D pressure discomfort threshold (PDT) map of the human head, face and neck: A new method for mapping human sensitivity

When designing wearables that interface with the human head, face and neck, designers and engineers consider human senses, ergonomics and comfort. A dense 3D pressure discomfort threshold map could be helpful, but does not exist yet. Differences in pressure discomfort threshold for areas of the head, neck and face were recorded, to create a 3D pressure discomfort threshold map. Between 126 and 146 landmarks were placed on the left side of the head, face and neck of twenty-eight healthy participants (gender balanced). The positions of the landmarks were specified using an EEG 10-20 system-based landmark-grid on the head and a self-developed grid on the face and neck. A 3D scan was made to capture the head geometry and landmark coordinates. In a randomised order, pressure was applied on each landmark with a force gauge until the participant indicated experiencing discomfort. By interpolating all collected pressure discomfort thresholds based on their corresponding 3D coordinates, a dense 3D pressure discomfort threshold map was made. A relatively low-pressure discomfort threshold was found in areas around the nose, neck front, mouth, chin-jaw, cheek and cheekbone, possibly due to the proximate or direct location of nerves, blood veins and soft (muscular) tissue. Medium pressure discomfort was found in the neck back, forehead and temple regions. High pressure discomfort threshold was found in the back of the head and scalp, where skin is relatively thin and closely supported by bone, making these regions interesting for mounting or resting head, face and neck related equipment upon.

Factors Participating in the Occurrence of Inflammation of the Lips (Cheilitis) and Perioral Skin

Lip inflammation may manifest as mainly reversible cheilitis, mainly irreversible, or cheilitis connected to dermatoses or systemic diseases. Therefore, knowing a patient’s medical history is important, especially whether their lip lesions are temporary, recurrent, or persistent. Sometimes temporary contributing factors, such as climate and weather conditions, can be identified and avoided—exposure to extreme weather conditions (e.g., dry, hot, or windy climates) may cause or trigger lip inflammation. Emotional and psychological stress are also mentioned in the etiology of some lip inflammations (e.g., exfoliative cheilitis) and may be associated with nervous habits such as lip licking. To better manage cheilitis, it is also helpful to look for potential concomitant comorbidities and the presence of related diseases/conditions. Some forms of cheilitis accompany dermatologic or systemic diseases (lichen, pemphigus or pemphigoid, erythema multiforme, lupus, angioedema, xerostomia, etc.) that should be uncovered. Occasionally, lip lesions are persistent and involve histological changes: actinic cheilitis, granulomatous cheilitis, glandular cheilitis, and plasmacellular cheilitis. Perioral skin inflammation with simultaneous perioral dermatitis can have various causes: the use of corticosteroids and cosmetics, dysfunction of the skin’s epidermal barrier, a contact reaction to allergens or irritants (e.g., toothpaste, dental fillings), microorganisms (e.g., Demodex spp., Candida albicans, fusiform bacteria), hormonal changes, or an atopic predisposition. Epidermal barrier dysfunction can worsen perioral dermatitis lesions and can also be related to secondary vitamin or mineral deficiencies (e.g., zinc deficiency), occlusive emollient use, sunscreen use, or excessive exposure to environmental factors such as heat, wind, and ultraviolet light. Current trends in research are uncovering valuable information concerning the skin microbiome and disruption of the epidermal barrier of persons suffering from perioral dermatitis. Ultimately, an effective approach to patient management must take all these factors and new research into account.

Effects of wearing personal protective equipment (PPE) and its role in affecting the work efficiency of dentists during the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

The risk of exposure to COVID-19 infection through droplets/aerosol in dental clinics has renewed focus on the utility and possible adverse effects of using personal protective equipment (PPE) on dentists.

OBJECTIVE

To obtain information from a cross-section of dentists regarding their PPE usage and to evaluate the possible risk factors that can influence their work efficiency.

METHODS

A 31-item cross-sectional survey with a structured multiple-choice questionnaire was designed. Social media and emails were used to circulate the questionnaire among dental professionals worldwide. A total of 317 respondents returned the completed forms.

RESULTS

A total of 184 (55%) participants reported getting soaking wet while wearing PPE at the end of the working hours (approximately eight hours of working). Many respondents (n = 286, 90%) reported that the use of PPE resulted in reduced visibility of the operating field. The majority of respondents (84%) felt that their overall work efficiency had reduced after using PPE. Binary logistic regression had shown that two significant factors that were associated with reduced work efficiency included, pre-existing systemic illness and getting soaking wet from wearing a PPE.

CONCLUSION

Definite protocols should be introduced that mandate the doffing of PPE for every patient, in a separate well-ventilated area where the skin can recuperate from the heat and pressure points caused by the PPE. Dentists should take greater care in choosing the appropriate PPE to prevent exacerbation of pre-existing illnesses, which may reduce their work efficiency.

Adaptive IR- and Water-Gating Textiles Based on Shape Memory Fibers

Thermoregulation is an essential function of the human body for adapting to the surrounding temperature. Stimuli-responsive smart textiles can provide effective protection of the human skin temperature from a continuously changing environment. Herein, we develop a smart textile based on shape memory polymer (SMP) fibers for adaptive regulation of IR and water transmission on human skin. An SMP textile is fabricated with hierarchical micro/nanoporous structures to enhance thermal insulation performance, and silver nanowires are coated on one side to provide asymmetric IR reflectivity and hydrophilicity. The porous SMP textile shows great tunability of thermal insulation and asymmetric wettability by deformation and recovery of the shape and structure in response to stimuli. The degree of thermal insulation is controlled by 65.7% of the original value, and the surface temperature of the SMP textile on a hot plate is successfully controlled in the IR images due to adaptive IR reflectivity. Additionally, the directional transportation of water droplets can be switched on/off according to the shape of the SMP textiles, which can be employed for sweat removal from the human skin. This IR- and water-gating smart textile can provide a feasible strategy for protecting the human skin from external environmental changes.

Occupational Dermatoses

Occupational skin diseases (OSDs) are one of the major problems in working life. Among occupational diseases, 30-45% are skin diseases. Contact dermatitis accounts for the greatest part (95%) of OSDs. It adversely affects the quality of life of workers. Classification of OSD is too difficult as there are geographical variations in the occupational groups affected. However, commonly affected occupational groups are agricultural workers, healthcare workers, construction workers, metal workers, cleaners, housekeepers, food handlers, hairdressers, beauticians, and mechanics. Because of the unorganized workplace, lack of a proper notification system for occupational dermatoses, and under-reporting of cases, there is a paucity of information regarding the magnitude of the problem of OSD in India. Although in India many studies have been conducted on individual small occupational groups, data on the complete epidemiology of OSD is limited. In this article, we have tried to compile the common OSDs in various occupations.

The prevalence of facial pressure injuries among nurses during COVID-19 pandemic and its relationship to COVID-19 infection

AIM

The aim of this study was to investigate the prevalence of facial pressure injuries related to personal protective equipment use in nurses and the relationship with getting COVID-19 infection.

DESIGN

The study used descriptive and correlational online survey design.

METHODS

Nurses in Turkey were recruited via an electronic link sent to their social media platforms (e.g., Facebook, Instagram, Twitter), WhatsApp, and e-mail during the study: March-April 2021. Of them, 603 participants completed the survey form from all over Turkey.

RESULTS/FINDINGS

Facial pressure injuries develop in nurses due to use of personal protective equipment. The rates of facial pressure injuries were higher in the nurses who were younger (p=0.002) and those who had less experience years (p=0.005) than the other nurses. The statistically significant variables were determined as age, status of using face shield, status of wearing overalls and status of wearing shoe covers (p<0.05). We determined that facial pressure injuries were not significantly associated with getting COVID-19 infection (p>0,05).

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that facial pressure injuries associated with personal protective equipment use among nurses, who work on the frontlines in the COVID-19 pandemic period, is highly prevalent. Experiencing facial pressure injuries did not have a significant effect on the participants' statuses of getting infected with COVID-19. Providing training in health institutions may present an effective strategy in lowering problems.

Dermatologic problems associated with personal protective equipment in health-care workers managing COVID-19 patients

BACKGROUND

The safety of health-care workers (HCWs) during the COVID-19 pandemic is a major concern worldwide. Dermatological problems due to personal protective equipment are annoying issues. We aimed to evaluate dermatological adverse events following the use of these protections in HCWs managing COVID-19 patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred and fifty-six workers managing COVID-19 patients were enrolled in this cross-sectional study. We conducted face-to-face interviews to collect the data and focused mainly on protection type and mucocutaneous symptoms with new onset or exaggeration after this equipment.

RESULTS

Dermatological problems following protective equipment usage occurred mainly during the 1^st week (65.4%). The most common site of skin involvement was the nose (82.7%) and the most frequent visible complaints were the pressure effect and erythema on the nose in 80.8% and 57.7% of cases, respectively. There was a significant association between mask type and facial skin problems (P < 0.001). The main symptoms were itching (21.8% scalp, 39.1% face and body) and burning sensation (14.1% scalp, 23.7% face and body). Skin desquamation (37.2%) and dorsal hand dermatitis (41.66%) were significantly more frequent in atopic participants (P = 0.02 and P = 0.01, respectively). Hand involvement was significantly associated with frequency of hand washing (odds ratio = 1.97, 95% confidence interval = 1.04-3.74, P = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

We found that skin problems related to protective equipment were common and frequently located on the face mainly due to facial masks. These complications should be prevented by proper use of this equipment.

Maskne: A New Acne Variant in Covid-19 Era

"Maskne" has been one of the negative spinoffs of the universally acceptable and effective role of face mask in containing the ongoing pandemic of SARS-CoV-2 virus or COVID 19. Several factors contribute to its aetiopathogenesis including heat, humidity, mechanical friction and microbiome dysbiosis in a complex interplay under the occlusive area of the mask. Clinically, the morphology is not very different from acne vulgaris with comedones and inflammatory acne, but in a characteristic distribution over a roughly circular area of face covered by mask. Since the use of face masks is likely to continue in the near future, measures like wearing a comfortably fitting mask of appropriate fabric, using disposable masks, increasing mask-free period when at safer places, avoiding unnecessary use of personal care products over the occluded skin, proper and gentle cleaning of the affected areas, intermittent mopping off of the excessive sebum and sweat and use of specific, topical and systemic therapy could help in its resolution.

Mask-related skin changes among healthcare workers in a community-based hospital

CONTEXT

During the COVID-19 pandemic, dermatologists within the Beaumont Farmington Hills' Dermatology program noticed an increase in conditions associated with mask wearing, such as "maskne" (acne in a mask distribution, thought to be caused by mask wearing), as well as worsening of previously diagnosed dermatologic conditions.

OBJECTIVES

The goal of our study was to explore various factors that impacted mask-related skin changes and how these skin changes affected quality of life.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was performed. The primary 10-item survey instrument administered was the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI). Respondents were asked a series of 10 additional questions concerning the degree to which abnormal mask-related skin conditions affect their skin symptoms, possible embarrassment/self-consciousness, and perceived impact of mask-related skin changes. A series of descriptive statistics, cross-tabulation charts, and graphical examinations of data was utilized to evaluate sample subgroup and outcome distributional patterns. Pearson r bivariate correlation coefficients between possible collinear predictive measures on the primary study outcome were calculated. A series of simple inferential chi-squared (Χ²) tests of independence were also conducted.

RESULTS

A total of 370 out of 430 (86.0%) Beaumont Health employees noticed some degree of skin changes since the work-hours face mask requirement was instituted, while 378 out of 430 (87.9%) felt that their skin was better when not wearing a mask. The majority of respondents, 283 (65.8%), reported having at least a little symptomatic skin (i.e., itchy, painful, sore, stinging) during the prior week. Furthermore, 72.3% reported that they were at least a little embarrassed or self-conscious of their skin. Chi-squared analysis of composite DLQI score categories by the number of types of masks utilized (Pearson X²=19.0, df=8, p=0.015), and some degree of symptomatic skin (Pearson X²=156.4, df=4, p<0.001) were found to be statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

A large number of healthcare workers are affected by mask-related skin changes. Further research should be directed at better understanding how skin changes associated with mask wearing impact one's quality of life and mental health.

Facial Dermatoses Induced by Face Masks: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies

The use of masks for infection control was common in the COVID‐19 pandemic. As numerous cross‐sectional studies have suggested a link between the use of such masks and various facial dermatoses, a systematic review and meta‐analysis of published studies was conducted to evaluate this association, as well as potential risk factors for the development of such facial dermatoses. Observational studies were searched for in MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register. Thirty‐seven observational studies with a total of 29 557 study participants were identified. This study was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 checklist and quality was assessed via the Newcastle‐Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale., Overall prevalence of facial dermatoses was 55%. Individually, acne, facial dermatitis, itch and pressure injuries were consistently reported as facial dermatoses, with a pooled prevalence of 31%, 24%, 30% and 31%, respectively. Duration of mask‐wear was the most significant risk factor for the development of facial dermatoses (95% CI: 1.31–1.54, p < 0.001). Overall, facial dermatoses associated with mask wear are common, and consist of distinct entities. They are related to duration of use. Appropriate and tailored treatment is important to improve the outcomes for these affected patients.

Acne care in health care providers during the COVID ‐19 pandemic: A national survey

The medical face mask, widely used by health care providers (HCPs) during the COVID‐19 pandemic, is reported to be associated with adverse reactions, among which acne is one of the most common. This study aims to evaluate treatment strategies employed by HCPs affected by acne in association with prolonged medical face mask use, their openness towards accessing telemedicine as a patient, and other lifestyle factors with potential influence on the evolution of their acne. Our online‐based cross‐sectional survey was distributed between December 17, 2020, and February 17, 2021, and targeted HCPs from different medical centers in Romania. From the n = 134 respondents, 50% reported current acne lesions and 56.7% required treatment. Of the latter, 65.8% self‐medicated and 34.2% sought medical advice. The most common treatment associations between anti‐acne topical products were: retinoids and salicylic acid (18.18%; n = 8), retinoids and benzoyl peroxide (13.64%; n = 6), salicylic acid and benzoyl peroxide (13.64%; n = 6), and azelaic acid together with salicylic acid (9.09%; n = 4). The health care provider responders were reluctant to use telemedicine, as only 14.2% participants were open to telemedicine. Our results suggest inadequate management of acne in HCPs using medical face masks. As with other occupational hazards and proper usage of personal protective equipment, HCPs should receive adequate screening, training, and treatment for this condition.

Personal protective equipment-related dermatoses in COVID-19 frontline health workers. A lesson learned from 1-year single center in the UAE

Since COVID‐19 was declared a pandemic in March 2020, frontline health care workers wear personal protective equipment (PPE, surgical masks, N95 or similar respirators, gloves, goggles, face shields, and gowns). Alcohol‐based sanitizers and wipes were recommended. Such measures lead to disruption of the natural skin habitat and skin barrier and various cutaneous reactions. The aim was to assess the prevalence and characteristics of PPE‐related dermatoses among health care workers in Sheikh Khalifa Medical City (SKMC), a COVID‐19 facility, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. We conducted a voluntary, cross‐sectional anonymous survey among first‐line health care workers addressing types of PPE used, dermatoses classified as PPE related, and factors that influence them. Facial, nasal, and hand dermatoses were the most prevalent with 40.2%, 19.9%, and 14.1%, respectively. The changes are primarily attributed to surgical masks, N‐95 masks, and gloves. The shift duration is a contributing factor correlating with the severity of skin damage. Results of this study encouraged decision makers to recognize PPE‐related dermatoses as a continuously growing burden, reorganized the shift duration and PPE exposure, animated the personal to apply preventive measures, and promoted the well‐being of medical professionals in new waves of the pandemic.

The Work Environment during Coronavirus Epidemics and Pandemics: A Systematic Review of Studies Using Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed-Methods Designs

We aimed to provide an overview of how work environment and occupational health are affected, and describe interventions designed to improve the work environment during epidemics and pandemics. The guidelines on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) were followed. The databases Cinahl, Medline, PsycInfo, and Web of Science were searched for population: working population; exposure: coronavirus epidemic or pandemic; and outcome: work environment, in articles published until October 2020. Quality assessment was based on a modified version of the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). After deduplication 3711 articles remained, of which 530 were selected for full-text screening and 119 for quality assessment. After the exclusion of studies that were low quality, 95 remained, of which 85 focused on healthcare personnel and 10 on employees in other industries; 73 used quantitative methods and 22 used qualitative or mixed methods; the majority were based on cross-sectional data. Healthcare staff experienced increased job demands, poor leadership, and lack of resources (personal protective equipment, personnel, and competence). High demands and work with infected patients were associated with negative mental health outcomes. There was a lack of studies assessing interventions, studies from industries other than healthcare, and studies of high quality.

Physical problems of prolonged use of personal protective equipment during the COVID-19 pandemic: A scoping review

Background

It is widely believed that using personal protective equipment (PPE) provides high levels of protection for healthcare workers (HCWs) in the fight against coronavirus disease (COVID‐19). However, the long‐term use of PPE is inconvenient for HCWs and may cause physical discomfort. These factors could result in poor compliance and disrupt the health and safety of HCWs, which may negatively affect the patient's safety.

Objective

This study aimed to investigate the literature for the purpose of collecting convincing evidence of HCWs' physical problems associated with PPE use during the COVID‐19 pandemic.

Methods

This scoping review was conducted using PubMed, Embase, ProQuest, Science Direct, Springer, Biomed Central, and Google Scholar to identify the related literature.

Results

HCWs have experienced various physical disorders including skin, respiratory, musculoskeletal, nervous, urinary, and circulatory system problems that are associated with PPE in various body systems. Among these, skin problems were the most frequent physical problems.

Conclusions

The literature demonstrated the adverse impacts of using PPE on HCWs. Therefore, healthcare policymakers should take the appropriate measures to improve the work environment during the COVID‐19 pandemic, which could consequently prevent and mitigate the adverse effects of using PPE.

The Change in The Frequency and Severity of Facial Dermatoses and Complaints in Healthcare Workers During the COVID-19

Background

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic has led to a dramatic increase in the use of personal protective equipment (PPE). However, the increased use of PPEs may lead to facial skin complaints.

Aims

This survey study aims to evaluate the effect of the COVID‐19 pandemic on facial dermatoses and complaints.

Methods

A total of 1017 volunteers (age 18–60 years), consisting of healthcare workers, participated in the study. In the present study, healthcare professionals were screened for facial dermatoses and complaints between 1 and 15 April 2021 with an online survey.

Results

The vast majority of the survey were women (82.4%) and between 26 and 35 years old (49.2%). The most new‐onset facial complaints were acne (25.3%) and lip dryness (29.2%). Along with the pandemic, 50.9% of patients with seborrheic dermatitis had an increase in lesions. Another remarkable result was a 60.5% increase in acne complaints. Moreover, the rate of exacerbations of rosacea, melasma, and lip dryness was increased after the COVID‐19 pandemic (39.1%, 22.0%, and 42.7%, respectively). Exacerbations of seborrheic dermatitis, acne, and lip dryness have occurred more frequently in females when compared to males (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

The current pandemic has had serious impacts on facial dermatoses which had to be managed carefully. Compared to the pre‐pandemic period, there was a significant increase in the frequency and severity of complaints in facial dermatoses related to PPE. If the complaints that may develop due to PPE are known in advance, their development can be prevented by taking precautions against them.

Protecting yourself from PPE skin injuries

ABSTRACT

Nurses are wearing personal protective equipment (PPE) for extended periods while providing patient care during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. This article identifies dermatologic issues of extended PPE use, explores the risks of injury, and offers prevention strategies.

P2/N95 respirators & surgical masks to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection: Effectiveness & adverse effects

BACKGROUND

Millions of people have acquired and died from SARS-CoV-2 infection during the COVID-19 pandemic. Healthcare workers (HCWs) are required to wear personal protective equipment (PPE), including surgical masks and P2/N95 respirators, to prevent infection while treating patients. However, the comparative effectiveness of respirators and masks in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection and the likelihood of experiencing adverse events (AEs) with wear are unclear.

METHODS

Searches were carried out in PubMed, Europe PMC and the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register to 14 June 2021. A systematic review of comparative epidemiological studies examining SARS-CoV-2 infection or AE incidence in HCWs wearing P2/N95 (or equivalent) respirators and surgical masks was performed. Article screening, risk of bias assessment and data extraction were duplicated. Meta-analysis of extracted data was carried out in RevMan.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies were included, with most having high risk of bias. There was no statistically significant difference in respirator or surgical mask effectiveness in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection (OR 0.85, [95%CI 0.72, 1.01]). Healthcare workers experienced significantly more headaches (OR 2.62, [95%CI 1.18, 5.81]), respiratory distress (OR 4.21, [95%CI 1.46, 12.13]), facial irritation (OR 1.80, [95%CI 1.03, 3.14]) and pressure-related injuries (OR 4.39, [95%CI 2.37, 8.15]) when wearing respirators compared to surgical masks.

CONCLUSION

The existing epidemiological evidence does not enable definitive assessment of the effectiveness of respirators compared to surgical masks in preventing infection. Healthcare workers wearing respirators may be more likely to experience AEs. Effective mitigation strategies are important to ensure the uptake and correct use of respirators by HCWs.

The role of SARS-CoV-2 infection and its vaccines in various types of hair loss

The prevalence of hair loss has increased during COVID‐19. In this study, we review the current literature on incidence and characteristics of various types of COVID‐19‐related and COVID‐19‐vaccine‐ related hair loss including telogen effluvium, alopecia areata, friction alopecia and anagen effluvium. Regarding most of them, the more severe the infection, the more profound and prolonged the course of alopecia. However, the most important issue is reassuring the patients of the non‐serious nature of this complication, since psychological support is the most important factor in the earlier resolution of the condition.

The Association Between Facial Dermatosis and Face-Mask Wearing During COVID-19 in Saudi Arabia

Background: During the coronavirus pandemic of 2019, there has been an upsurge in the number of reported cases of facial dermatosis caused by face masks wearing within the general population. Face mask-induced facial dermatosis has been investigated previously in healthcare workers without involving the general population. However, as a precautionary measure against the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, wearing a face mask has become mandatory for the general population, similar to healthcare workers. 

Objective: To measure the prevalence of COVID-19 pandemic-induced facial dermatosis. Also, to determine the type of face mask used that causes the most facial dermatosis and the association between prolonged usage of face masks and facial dermatosis in Western Saudi Arabia's population.

Methods: The study covers the Western region of Saudi Arabia. A self-administered Google survey was shared on social media. The study used prior surveys from similar studies. The data collection included participants’ demographic information, pre-existing skin conditions, mask type, and mask-related skin conditions. The data were analyzed using the statistical package for the social sciences (SPSS) version 20.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY).

Results: The median age was 30 years (interquartile range {IQR} 23-43). Females represented 65.5% of our sample. Face mask-wearing was associated with skin changes in 41.7% of the population. The most common skin condition associated with mask use was pimples and pustules representing 28.7%, of which the most common site was on the cheeks 31.4%. Acne vulgaris was the most common pre-existing skin condition, affecting 8.7% of the total population. Of the total, 46.2% experienced an exacerbation of their pre-existing skin condition with or after wearing masks. Skin changes were significantly associated with skin type and duration of wearing the mask (P<0.001).

Conclusion: The prevalence of facial mask-induced facial dermatosis is 41.7% of the general population in which surgical mask was responsible for most cases. In addition, there is a strong association between the duration of wearing the mask and facial dermatosis.

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.

Skin care and hygiene among healthcare professionals during and after the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic has necessitated enhanced protection against viral transmission among healthcare professionals, particularly relating to handwashing and personal protective equipment. Some of these requirements may persist for years to come. They bring associated concerns around skin hygiene and general care, with damage to the face and hands now a well-documented consequence among healthcare professionals. This review assesses optimal skin care during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic and in the "new normal" that will follow, identifies current knowledge gaps, and provides practical advice for the clinical setting. Regular, systematic hand cleaning with soap and water or an alcohol-based hand rub (containing 60%-90% ethanol or isopropyl alcohol) remains essential, although the optimal quantity and duration is unclear. Gloves are a useful additional barrier; further studies are needed on preferred materials. Moisturization is typically helpful and has proven benefits in mitigating damage from frequent handwashing. It may be best practiced using an alcohol-based hand rub with added moisturizer and could be particularly important among individuals with pre-existing hand dermatoses, such as psoriasis and eczema. Face moisturization immediately prior to donning a mask, and the use of dressings under the mask to reduce friction, can be helpful dermatologically, but more work is required to prove that these actions do not affect seal integrity. Nonetheless, such measures could play a role in institutional plans for mitigating the dermatologic impact of transmission control measures as we exit the pandemic.

Adverse skin reactions among health care workers using face personal protective equipment during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic: A cross-sectional survey of six hospitals in Denmark

BACKGROUND

Health care workers (HCWs) report frequent adverse skin reactions (ASRs) due to face personal protective equipment (F-PPE) use during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.

OBJECTIVES

To describe self-reported ASRs among HCWs using F-PPE; investigate background factors, such as chronic skin diseases and skin types (dry, oily, combination, sensitive), and determine whether HCWs took preventive methods against ASRs.

METHODS

An online questionnaire was distributed to 22 993 HCWs at hospitals.

RESULTS

The prevalence of ASRs was 61.9% based on 10 287 responders. Different types of F-PPE caused different reactions. The most common ASRs from surgical masks were spots and pimples (37.2%) and from FFP3 masks was red and irritated skin (27.3%). A significantly higher proportion of HCWs with chronic skin diseases had ASRs (71.6%) than those without chronic skin diseases (59.7%) (P < .001). Some skin types were more prone to ASRs (sensitive skin [78.8%] vs dry skin [54.3%]; P = .001). HCWs using F-PPE for >6 hours versus <3 hours per day had a four times higher ASR risk (P = <.001). Nearly all HCWs used preventive and/or counteractive methods (94.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

It is important to consider background factors, such as chronic skin diseases and skin types, to prevent and counteract ASRs due to F-PPE use.

HIGHLIGHTS

Daily long-term use of face protective equipment increased the risk of adverse skin reaction by four times. Health care workers (HCWs) with chronic skin diseases had significantly more skin reactions than those without. Sensitive skin types were more prone to skin reactions. The skin reactions were higher in HCWs in intensive care units than HCWs in in-patient clinics.

Assessment of pressure sensitivity in the head region for Chinese adults

Measurement of pressure threshold has found its applications in the fields of medical sciences and product design. Hence it has been a profound area of research interest for several decades. However, hardly any detailed investigation has been undertaken to measure the pressure threshold in the head region. In this study, Pressure Discomfort Threshold (PDT) and Pressure Pain Threshold (PPT) were measured for two hundred eighteen healthy Chinese adults at seventy-six anatomical locations, and further statistical analyses were performed on the acquired data to understand the relationship between different demographic parameters. The results suggest that the pressure sensitivity is low in the vertex region, moderate in the forehead and temporal area, and high in the facial and nasal region. From this study, pressure sensitivity maps were developed for PDT and PPT for Chinese adults. The measured pressure threshold data showed no significant relationship with age and Body Mass Index (BMI).

The lived experiences of frontline nurses during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in Qatar: A qualitative study

AIM

This study aims to explore the lived experiences of frontline nurses providing nursing care for COVID-19 patients in Qatar.

DESIGN

Qualitative, Phenomenological.

METHODS

Nurses were recruited from a designated COVID-19 facility using purposive and snowball sampling. The participants were interviewed face-to-face using semi-structured interview questions from 6 September-10 October 2020. The interviews were transcribed and analyzed using Colaizzi's phenomenological method.

RESULT

A total of 30 nurses were interviewed; (76.7%) were deployed for >6 months. Three major themes were drawn from the analysis: (a) Challenges of working in a COVID-19 facility (subthemes: working in a new context and new working environment, worn out by the workload, the struggle of wearing protective gear, fear of COVID-19, witnessing suffering); (b) Surviving COVID-19 (subthemes: keeping it safe with extra measures, change in eating habits, teamwork and camaraderie, social support); and (c) Resilience of Nurses (subthemes: a true calling, a sense of purpose).

Association of Acne with Face Mask in Healthcare Workers Amidst the COVID-19 Outbreak in Karachi, Pakistan

Background

In the wake of coronavirus (COVID-19) global alert, people have begun to practice safety measures in order to reduce the exposure to life-threatening disease. The largest at risk population is undoubtedly the frontline healthcare workers (HCWs) who are using personal protective equipment (PPE), essentially face masks, to battle against this deadly virus. This study was conducted with the prime intention to reveal an association between face mask and acne and measure the prevalence of acne amongst HCWs amidst COVID-19 outbreak in Karachi. Furthermore, this study aimed to identify the type of mask generating acne, locate the common sites, assess the severity and establish an association of mask use with the skin type.

Methods

This cross-sectional study was carried out at Medicare Cardiac and General Hospital, Jinnah Medical College Hospital, Jinnah Postgraduate Medical Centre and Jamal Noor Hospital located in Karachi, Pakistan. A total of 348 HCWs were interviewed, of which only 193 met the inclusion criteria. All information was recorded on a predesigned proforma and analyzed using SPSS 25.0.

Results

Among 193 participants, acne was prevalent in 103 (53.4%) participants with maximum cases reported in female HCWs, and in doctors (p<0.05). Out of 73 HCWs using N-95 masks, 46 (44.7%) developed acne, with a p-value of 0.036. Skin type and past history of acne also yielded statistically significant results. Among all the skin types, HCWs with oily skin (64, 62.1%) were prone to face resurgence of acne or new-onset acne. The most common sites of eruption of acne were along the cheeks (45.1%) followed by the nose (40.9%). Majority of the population suffered from mild acne. Moderate and severe acne eruption was particularly observed in those wearing N-95 and surgical masks.

Conclusion

The use of face masks is associated with high rates of acne eruption. Disseminating the guidelines and indications of World Health Organization (WHO) regarding proper use of mask, encouraging awareness among HCWs and following proper doffing and donning protocol as endorsed by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will possibly minimize the adverse reactions.

The course of acne in healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic and evaluation of possible risk factors

Background

There are a limited number of publications reporting an increase in acne in the COVID‐19 outbreak.

Objective

The study aimed to evaluate the course and the clinical features of acne and possible risk factors during the COVID‐19 pandemic in healthcare workers.

Method

A total of 172 physicians (female, n = 159, male; n = 13, mean age = 35.03 ± 5.27 years) who had acne in any period of their life were included in the study. A self‐administered online questionnaire was applied.

Results

During the COVID‐19 pandemic, 45.35% of the participants reported that their acne complaints increased, 27.33% reported relapses, and 7.56% reported occurrence for the first time. Newly formed acne was reported most frequently on the chin (78.26%). The number of female participants, smoking, increased stress, and the rate of surgical mask use were found to be higher in the group whose acne occurred for the first time, relapsed, or increased than in the group whose acne complaints were unchanged or decreased (p < 0.05). In the group whose acne relapsed or increased, adult‐onset acne, presence of scar, and use of systemic acne treatment before the COVID‐19 pandemic were more common than in the group whose acne complaints were unchanged or decreased (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

Almost half of the participants reported an increase in acne. More than a third of the participants reported that their acne relapsed or they had acne for the first time. In addition to the use of surgical masks, factors such as increased stress, smoking, adult‐onset acne, presence of scar, and previous systemic acne treatment were found to be responsible for acne development.

Shortage of Personal Protective Equipment and Nurse Safety in the Coronavirus Disease-19 Pandemic: A Cross-sectional Study in Indonesia

BACKGROUND: There has been a substantial scarcity of personal protective equipment (PPE) in several countries during the ongoing pandemic of Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19). Nurses in Indonesia also experience a shortage of PPE as the number of COVID-19 patients in Indonesia continues to increase. There is no accurate data yet regarding the exact number of PPE scarcity for nurses. AIM: This study aimed to describe the availability of PPE and adverse consequences long-term used off the PPE and examine the relationship between shortage PPE and nurse behavior response in Indonesia. METHODS: An online-based survey was used to collect data on the nurse, regardless of their discipline, training background, or degree of experience, who are directly involved in managing COVID-19 patients. In this study, a total of 211 questionnaires were gathered. The survey was conducted using the Google form. This study employs univariate and bivariate analysis. RESULTS: Most of the mask N95 provision reaches up to 80%. The second is the hazmat (71%) and the lowest in the gloves (30%). Around 71% of respondents generally resist removing their PPE until the shift is complete. Then, 62% of the respondents are ready to propose to the leaders of the PPE, and 51% show that they are modifying the PPE. Nasal blisters are the most prevalent type of injury sustained by nurses while wearing PPE (86%), followed by headaches and dehydration. This study found that most respondents (60.7%) with insufficient PPE had a positive behavior reaction, whereas just 18% had a poor behavior reaction. CONCLUSION: Most nurses have difficulties accessing N95 and experience some adverse effects of prolonging PPE use. Policymakers should take urgent action to tackle these concerns.

Impact of personal protective equipment use on health care workers' physical health during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, health care workers (HCWs) have been obliged to wear personal protective equipment (PPE). We assessed the impact of PPE use on HCWs' physical health and we examined factors related to a greater risk of adverse events due to PPE use.

METHODS

We applied the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines and the Cochrane criteria. We searched PubMed, Medline, Scopus, ProQuest, CINAHL, and medRxiv from January 1, 2020 to December 27, 2020.

RESULTS

Our review included 14 studies with 11,746 HCWs. The estimated overall prevalence of adverse events among HCWs was 78% with a range from 42.8% to 95.1% among studies. Among others, the following factors were related to the risk of adverse events among HCWs due to PPE use: obesity, diabetes mellitus, smoking, pre-existing headache, longer duration of shifts wearing PPE, increased consecutive days with PPE, and increased exposure to confirmed or suspected COVID-19 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The frequency of adverse events among HCWs due to PPE use is very high. Healthcare facilities should take the necessary precautions and change the working conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic to prevent adverse events associated with PPE use and minimize harm to HCWs.

Key ingredients and recycling strategy of personal protective equipment (PPE): Towards sustainable solution for the COVID-19 like pandemics

The COVID-19 pandemic has intensified the complications of plastic trash management and disposal. The current situation of living in fear of transmission of the COVID-19 virus has further transformed our behavioural models, such as regularly using personal protective equipment (PPE) kits and single-use applications for day to day needs etc. It has been estimated that with the passage of the coronavirus epidemic every month, there is expected use of 200 billion pieces of single-use facemasks and gloves. PPE are well established now as life-saving items for medicinal specialists to stay safe through the COVID-19 pandemic. Different processes such as glycolysis, hydrogenation, aminolysis, hydrolysis, pyrolysis, and gasification are now working on finding advanced technologies to transfer waste PPE into value-added products. Here, in this article, we have discussed the recycling strategies of PPE, important components (such as medical gloves, gowns, masks & respirators and other face and eye protection) and the raw materials used in PPE kits. Further, the value addition methods to recycling the PPE kits, chemical & apparatus used in recycling and recycling components into value-added products. Finally, the biorenewable materials in PPE for textiles components have been discussed along with concluded remarks.

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.

Quality of Life, Sleep Quality, Depression, Anxiety, Stress, Eating Habits, and Social Bounds in Nurses during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic in Qatar (The PROTECTOR Study): A Cross-Sectional, Comparative Study

There have been numerous concerns regarding the physical and mental health of nurses during the COVID-19 pandemic. Stress, sleep deprivation, anxiety, and depression potentiated nurses’ vulnerability to poor eating habits. Aims and Objectives: The purpose of this study was to explore the differences between nurses’ characteristics with COVID-19 facility designation, and sleep quality, depression, anxiety, stress, eating habits, social bonds, and quality of life. Design: A cross-sectional, comparative study. Methods: An online survey was sent using the corporation’s email to nurses working in three hospitals in Qatar from September to December 2020. One of them is a designated COVID-19 facility. The sleep quality, depression, eating habits, social bonds, and quality of life were measured using The Insomnia Severity Index (ISI), Depression Anxiety and Stress Scale 21 (DASS-21), Emotional Eater Questionnaire (EEQ), Oslo Social Support Scale (OSSS-3), and the World Health Organization Quality of Life (WHOQOL-BREF), respectively. Results: A total of 200 nurses participated in the study (RR: 13.3%). No statistically significant association was found between designated facility (COVID-19 vs. not COVID-19) or nurses’ characteristics and ISI categories (OR 1.15; 95% CI 0.54, 2.44). Nurses working in COVID-19 facilities had increased odds of having higher EEQ categories by 2.62 times (95% CI 1.18, 5.83). Similarly, no statistically significant associations were found between any of the nurses’ characteristics and OSSS-3 categories. On the other hand, no statistically significant associations were found between any of the nurses’ characteristics and QOL domains except for the gender and social relationships’ domain. Conclusion: Overall, the quality of life of nurses in Qatar is on a positive level whether they are assigned to a COVID-19 facility or not. Although no significant difference was found with regard to the sleep quality, stress, anxiety, depression, and eating habits between nurses in a COVID-19 facility and in a non-COVID-19 facility, special interventions to diminish stressors need to be implemented and maintained.

Personal protective equipment-related occupational dermatoses during COVID-19 among health care workers: A worldwide systematic review

Background

Occupational dermatoses caused by personal protective equipment (PPE) in the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic are emerging occupational health challenges that must be promptly and effectively addressed to ease burden on our health care workers.

Objective

A systematic review was conducted to determine common PPE-related dermatoses, affected body sites, and implicated occupational contactants. We further proposed solutions to mitigate this problem.

Methods

Online databases were searched for articles on PPE-related dermatoses in health care workers during the COVID-19 pandemic written in English and published from January 1, 2020, to January 30, 2021.

Results

Sixteen studies, including a total of 3958 participants, were included. The most common dermatoses were xerosis, pressure-related erythema, and contact dermatitis, mainly affecting the face and hands. The most widely implicated contactants were increased frequency of hand hygiene, gloves, N95 masks, and goggles. Proposed solutions were categorized as individual self-care, protection of the workforce, and long-term preventive measures.

Conclusion

Through measures such as regular basic skin care education, early access to specialty clinics via telemedicine, and designing of better-fit PPE, the challenges posed by PPE-related occupational dermatoses can be significantly reduced.

COVID-19 and Healthcare Worker: What We Need to Know

COVID-19 pandemic has challenged and overwhelmed most healthcare institutions and healthcare workers, across the world. Despite being unprepared for this pandemic, frontline workers have worked relentlessly to provide the much-needed care to these patients. Doctors from different branches of medicine, including dermatologists, came forward and played a substantial role in mitigating the impact of this pandemic on the general population. Sadly, in the process, these healthcare workers faced many personal, social, psychological, economic, and health-related issues. The psychological burden and health-related issues received due attention in the main-stream news as well as scientific research papers. With most frontline workers isolated from their families, social media became the new platform to reduce the sense of isolation and share their anxiety, insomnia, and fatigue. This article is aimed at highlighting various challenges faced by healthcare workers during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

Occupational facial dermatoses related to mask use in healthcare professionals

Background

Mask use can lead to facial dermatoses due to factors, such as hyperhydration, seborrhea, high humidity caused by sweating, and the occlusive effect of the mask.

Aim

We investigated mask‐related facial dermatoses in healthcare personnel who, since the beginning of the COVID‐19 pandemic, had to wear a mask for long hours.

Methods

In this study, healthcare professionals working at Medipol Mega University Hospital since the beginning of the pandemic were screened for facial dermatoses between December 2020 and February 2021 with a dermatological examination and interview.

Results

Of the 101 healthcare professionals, 51 (50.5%) were doctors and 50 (49.5%) nurses, and 36 (35.6%) were male and 65 (64.4%) were female. All the participants had been actively working at the hospital for 35–46 weeks since the beginning of the pandemic and wearing N95 or surgical masks for an average of 6–13 h a day. During the dermatological examination, the most common facial dermatosis was acne, which was observed in 55.4% (n = 56) of the cases. Of the 56 acne cases, 41.1% (n = 23) had acne in their history, while 58.9% (n = 33) had new‐onset acne. Being female, using a N95 surgical mask compared to surgical mask, and the daily average duration of mask use were determined as risk factors for acne development due to mask use.

Conclusions

The use of masks, more frequently N95, caused both an increase in existing acne and the development of new acne.

Changes in skin characteristics after using respiratory protective equipment (medical masks and respirators) in the COVID-19 pandemic among healthcare workers

BACKGROUND

The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) outbreak has presented unique dermatologic challenges due to respiratory protective equipment (RPE)-related skin conditions.

OBJECTIVE

To objectively evaluate the effects of RPE including medical masks and respirators on the skin barrier by measuring various physiological properties of the skin.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was designed. Twenty healthy healthcare workers were included in this study. Skin parameters including skin hydration, transepidermal water loss (TEWL), erythema, sebum secretion, pH, and skin temperature were measured in the RPE-covered and RPE-uncovered areas of the face 4 and 8 hours after wearing RPE and 14 hours after not wearing RPE.

RESULTS

Skin hydration, TEWL, erythema, pH, and skin temperature increased in the RPE-covered areas after wearing RPE for 4 and 8 hours. By contrast, in the RPE-uncovered areas, skin hydration decreased and TEWL, erythema, and pH showed minimal changes over time. Based on the repeated-measure analysis, the changes in skin physiological properties over time were significantly different between RPE-covered and RPE-uncovered areas.

CONCLUSION

We observed that skin physiological characteristics change with the prolonged use of RPE such as medical masks and respirators. These changes may lead to various adverse skin reactions after long-term use.

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.

SARS-CoV-2 safety: Guidelines for shielding frontline nurses

ABSTRACT

Protecting nurses in healthcare facilities from SARS-CoV-2 infection is essential for maintaining an adequate nursing force. Foundational guidelines, consistently utilized, protect the nursing staff from infection. This article describes guidelines designed to reduce acute infection and associated morbidity and mortality among nursing staff and improve compliance with infection prevention protocols.

Associations between COVID-19 and skin conditions identified through epidemiology and genomic studies

Background

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is commonly associated with skin manifestations, and may also exacerbate existing skin diseases, yet the relationship between COVID-19 and skin diseases remains unclear.

Objective

By investigating this relationship through a multiomics approach, we sought to ascertain whether patients with skin conditions are more susceptible to COVID-19.

Methods

We conducted an epidemiological study and then compared gene expression across 9 different inflammatory skin conditions and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2–infected bronchial epithelial cell lines, and then performed a genome-wide association study transdisease meta-analysis between COVID-19 susceptibility and 2 skin diseases (psoriasis and atopic dermatitis).

Results

Skin conditions, including psoriasis and atopic dermatitis, increase the risk of COVID-19 (odds ratio, 1.55; P = 1.4 × 10⁻⁹) but decrease the risk of mechanical ventilation (odds ratio, 0.22; P = 8.5 × 10⁻⁵). We observed significant overlap in gene expression between the infected normal bronchial epithelial cells and inflammatory skin diseases, such as psoriasis and atopic dermatitis. For genes that are commonly induced in both the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection and skin diseases, there are 4 S100 family members located in the epidermal differentiation complex, and we also identified the “IL-17 signaling pathway” (P = 4.9 × 10⁻⁷⁷) as one of the most significantly enriched pathways. Furthermore, a shared genome-wide significant locus in the epidermal differentiation complex was identified between psoriasis and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection, with the lead marker being a significant expression quantitative trait locus for S100A12 (P = 3.3 × 10⁻⁷).

Conclusions

Together our findings suggest association between inflammatory skin conditions and higher risk of COVID-19, but with less severe course, and highlight shared components involved in anti–COVID-19 immune response.

Frontline healthcare workers' experiences with personal protective equipment during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK: a rapid qualitative appraisal

OBJECTIVES

To report frontline healthcare workers' (HCWs) experiences with personal protective equipment (PPE) during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. To understand HCWs' fears and concerns surrounding PPE, their experiences following its guidance and how these affected their perceived ability to deliver care during the COVID-19 pandemic.

DESIGN

A rapid qualitative appraisal study combining three sources of data: semistructured in-depth telephone interviews with frontline HCWs (n=46), media reports (n=39 newspaper articles and 145 000 social media posts) and government PPE policies (n=25).

PARTICIPANTS

Interview participants were HCWs purposively sampled from critical care, emergency and respiratory departments as well as redeployed HCWs from primary, secondary and tertiary care centres across the UK.

RESULTS

A major concern was running out of PPE, putting HCWs and patients at risk of infection. Following national level guidance was often not feasible when there were shortages, leading to reuse and improvisation of PPE. Frequently changing guidelines generated confusion and distrust. PPE was reserved for high-risk secondary care settings and this translated into HCWs outside these settings feeling inadequately protected. Participants were concerned about differential access to adequate PPE, particularly for women and Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic HCWs. Participants continued delivering care despite the physical discomfort, practical problems and communication barriers associated with PPE use.

CONCLUSION

This study found that frontline HCWs persisted in caring for their patients despite multiple challenges including inappropriate provision of PPE, inadequate training and inconsistent guidance. In order to effectively care for patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, frontline HCWs need appropriate provision of PPE, training in its use as well as comprehensive and consistent guidance. These needs must be addressed in order to protect the health and well-being of the most valuable healthcare resource in the COVID-19 pandemic: our HCWs.