Which dermatology patients attend to Dermatology Outpatient Clinics during the SARS‐CoV‐2 outbreak in Turkey and what happened to them?

Coronavirus disease, first emerged in Wuhan, rapidly spread all over the world since December 2019. There are concerns about elective dermatology appointments and its results. Herein, we aimed to find out which type of dermatologic patients attended to dermatology outpatient clinic. The patients visiting the clinics for elective dermatologic diseases between March 11 and 18, 2020, were included in this study. Their age, sex, diagnosis of disease, requirement for emergent intervention, and their medical records about COVID‐19 were obtained. There were 390 patients attending to the dermatology outpatient clinic in this period. The most common disease was acne (N: 94, 24%), only 19% of patients need emergent interventions or dose adjustment. There were 40 (10%) patients over the age of 65. After their visits, five patients were diagnosed as COVID‐19 in 2weeks. Dermatologic examinations may be a vector for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) transmission since being closed to the patient. Five of our patients were diagnosed as COVID‐19 after their elective visit to hospital. Since the asymptomatic course of some young patients, most of our patients were not screened for COVID‐19. Our findings support the concerns of elective physician examinations.     

The effect of the “stay‐at‐home” policy on requests for dermatology outpatient clinic visits after the COVID‐19 outbreak

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID‐19) emerged late in Turkey but it showed a rapid progression later. We aimed to investigate the changes in the number of patients who requested a dermatology outpatient clinic visit due to the increased social and medical burden caused by COVID‐19 in Turkey during the first days of the pandemic. We also examined the most common dermatologic diseases diagnosed during the COVID‐19 outbreak. A statistically significant negative correlation was found between the number of COVID‐19 patients in the country and the number of patients requesting a dermatology outpatient clinic visit in the secondary and tertiary care hospitals during self‐quarantine. In the first 10 days after the COVID‐19 outbreak, acne (28.2%), urticaria (12.8%), scabies (12.8%), irritant contact dermatitis (10.3%), and xerosis cutis (10.2%) were the most common diseases seen in the dermatology clinic at the secondary care hospital, while acne (23.3%), warts (5.4%), seborrheic dermatitis (4.5%), urticaria (3.8%), and psoriasis (3.32%) were the most common diseases seen in the dermatology clinic at the tertiary care hospital. This is our first study on the frequency and nature of outpatient dermatology visits during this novel coronavirus pandemic. Understanding the trends and impacts of dermatologic diseases on patients and health systems during this pandemic will allow for better preparation of dermatologists in the future.     

Chilblains‐like lesions and SARS‐CoV‐2 in children: An overview in therapeutic approach

SARS‐CoV‐2 (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, Coronavirus, type 2) is the virus responsible for the global pandemic of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) that began in China in December 2019. The variability of nasal olfactory symptoms in pediatric patients is interlinked with possible warning signs, including respiratory, gastrointestinal, ocular, or dermatological symptoms. Skin findings in patients with COVID‐19 can range from petechiae to papulovesicular rashes to diffuse urticaria and can be confused with rashes of non‐COVID‐19 conditions. These lesions typically appear early during COVID‐19 and are thought to be secondary to viral replication or circulating cytokines. Herein, we discuss two pediatric cases, presenting with skin lesions, which tested positive for SARS‐CoV‐2, thus, briefly reviewing current literature for similar reports and related management. Although these lesions heal spontaneously in most cases, an adequate “targeted” therapeutic approach can shorten the time and the discomfort of the skin disease.     

L‐lysine therapy to control the clinical evolution of pityriasis rosea: Clinical case report and literature review

Pityriasis rosea (PR) is a dermatological disease with an erythemato‐papulosquamous manifestation, distributed on the trunk and extremities affecting healthy people, especially children and young people between 10 and 35 years of age. The evolution is 6 to 8 weeks and may remain for 3 to 6 months. It regresses spontaneously and can leave changes in the skin color but reversibly. Acyclovir is indicated to minimize clinical manifestations with the suspected of viral association (HHV‐6 and 7). Another group of the human herpesvirus family (HHV‐1 and 2), causes herpes simplex that is controlled with the antivirals, including acyclovir, as well as the amino acid L‐lysine, both showing positive and similar results in reducing the number of annual manifestations and the healing time of the lesions. The aim of this study is to report a case of PR in a child, to review the literature on the etiopathogenesis of the disease and on the effects of L‐lysine as well as another amino acid in the treatment. An 11‐year‐old girl, phototype II, presented lesions diagnosed as PR. The cycle would be 6 to 8 weeks on average. A solution of L‐lysine was prescribed for 30 days, on an empty stomach. After the fourth day of therapy, the cycle of new eruptions was interrupted, initial lesions regressed, accelerating the repair of larger lesions resulting in an improvement of the clinical condition. We concluded that the administration of L‐lysine, in therapeutic doses, can be a safe alternative for the PR control.     

Systemische Immunsuppression in Zeiten von COVID‐19: Müssen wir umdenken?

The current SARS‐CoV‐2 pandemic particularly endangers older people with pre‐existing cardiopulmonary and metabolic conditions. However, it is also currently under discussion whether patients under immunosuppressive therapy also have a higher risk of suffering a severe course of the COVID‐19 disease. In principle though, there is currently no data available for a general reduction or pause of immunosuppression in patients with autoimmune diseases because of the SARS‐CoV‐2 pandemic. However, since there is currently neither an effective therapy nor corresponding vaccination protection, the indication for a prolonged immunosuppressive therapy should be made with special care. In particular, immunotherapeutic agents that produce long‐term effects (e.g., rituximab) should be used with special caution. In contrast, immunomodulating substances that do not suppress antiviral immunity (e.g. systemic immunoglobulins, doxycycline), or that have intrinsic effects on SARS‐CoV‐2 (calcineurin inhibitors, chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine) may be useful alternatives.     

Influence of COVID‐19 pandemic on hospitalizations at the tertiary dermatology department in south‐west Poland

New virus SARS‐Cov‐2 infection has spread over the world affecting all daily activities, including functioning of health services. Due to pandemic, many hospitals were ordered to re‐organize their work. The aim of the current report was to evaluate the influence of COVID‐19 pandemic on the hospitalizations at the tertiary dermatology department in south‐west Poland. Two corresponding periods of 2019 and 2020 were compared in aspect of number of hospitalizations, sex, and age profile of inpatients. We clearly showed a significant reduction of hospitalized patients during the pandemic period, with marked reduction of female patients. Moreover, the significant decrease of admissions to dermatology ward was observed within children and patients older than 70 years. Patients with chronic inflammatory dermatoses (eg, atopic dermatitis, eczemas, lichen planus, pityriasis rubra pilaris) were less often hospitalized during the pandemic period. In contrast, patients suffering from dermatitis due to substances taken internally, erysipelas, syphilis, and primary cutaneous lymphomas constituted significantly higher rate of hospitalized subjects in the year 2020.     

COVID‐19 and immunological regulations – from basic and translational aspects to clinical implications

The COVID‐19 pandemic caused by SARS‐CoV‐2 has far‐reaching direct and indirect medical consequences. These include both the course and treatment of diseases. It is becoming increasingly clear that infections with SARS‐CoV‐2 can cause considerable immunological alterations, which particularly also affect pathogenetically and/or therapeutically relevant factors. Against this background we summarize here the current state of knowledge on the interaction of SARS‐CoV‐2/COVID‐19 with mediators of the acute phase of inflammation (TNF, IL‐1, IL‐6), type 1 and type 17 immune responses (IL‐12, IL‐23, IL‐17, IL‐36), type 2 immune reactions (IL‐4, IL‐13, IL‐5, IL‐31, IgE), B‐cell immunity, checkpoint regulators (PD‐1, PD‐L1, CTLA4), and orally druggable signaling pathways (JAK, PDE4, calcineurin). In addition, we discuss in this context non‐specific immune modulation by glucocorticosteroids, methotrexate, antimalarial drugs, azathioprine, dapsone, mycophenolate mofetil and fumaric acid esters, as well as neutrophil granulocyte‐mediated innate immune mechanisms. From these recent findings we derive possible implications for the therapeutic modulation of said immunological mechanisms in connection with SARS‐CoV‐2/COVID‐19. Although, of course, the greatest care should be taken with patients with immunologically mediated diseases or immunomodulating therapies, it appears that many treatments can also be carried out during the COVID‐19 pandemic; some even appear to alleviate COVID‐19.     

Coronavirus disease (COVID‐19): An updated review based on current knowledge and existing literature for dermatologists

The world entered the year 2020 with reports of the emergence of a new viral illness in Wuhan city, Hubei province, China. In January 2020, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) was identified to be the causative novel coronavirus for the cluster of patients suffering from pneumonia in China. The disease was later named as coronavirus disease (COVID‐19) and was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization on March 11, 2020. Several studies, since then, have tried to study and explain the origin of SARS‐CoV‐2, its structure and pathogenicity, epidemiology, modes of transmission, spectrum of illness and causes of mortality and morbidity. The current management strategies focus on supportive care and prevention of complications. With no definite treatment, as of now, encouraging reports of some anti‐viral and anti‐malarial drugs in the management of COVID‐19 generate some hope. This review intends to cover the current known aspects of COVID‐19 and SARS‐CoV‐19, based on the available literature.     

COVID‐19 Pandemic: Consensus guidelines for preferred practices in an aesthetic clinic

Strict infection control measures in response to the current COVID‐19 pandemic are expected to remain for an extended period. In aesthetic clinics, most procedures are provided on one to one basis by the physician or therapist. In such a scenario, guidelines detailing the infection control measures for aesthetic clinics are of particular importance. An online meeting of an international group of experts in the field of aesthetic medicine, with experience in administration of an aesthetic clinic, was convened. The meeting aimed to provide a set of consensus guidelines to protect clinic staff and patients from SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. Consensus guidelines for “preferred practices” were provided for scheduling of patients, patient evaluation and triaging, and for safety precautions about the different procedures. Procedures were categorized into low‐risk, moderate risk, and high‐risk based on the likelihood of transmission of SARS‐CoV‐2 virus from the patient to the treating physician or therapist. While not intended to be complete or exhaustive, these guidelines provide sound infection control measures for aesthetic practices. Since guidelines regarding safety measures and use of PPEs may vary from country to country, the local guidelines should also be followed to prevent COVID‐19 infection in aesthetic clinics.     

Change of the diagnostic distribution in applicants to dermatology after COVID‐19 pandemic: What it whispers to us?

We aim to evaluate the change in the diagnostic spectrum in dermatology outpatient applications compared to before COVID‐19. All patients were enrolled from the Department of Dermatology between February 12 and May 8, 2020, the duration of 4 weeks before COVID‐19 and 8 weeks after were analyzed in three parts consisting of 4 weeks. Data obtained from the database such as age, gender, diagnoses were anonymized. Repeated applications with the same diagnosis in 10 days after the first presentation were ignored. Compared to the pre‐outbreak, there was a 3.5‐fold decrease in dermatology applications in the first month after COVID‐19 and an 8.8‐fold in the second month. We found a significant increase in the frequency of diagnoses such as generalized pruritus, pityriasis rosea, alopecia areata, bacterial skin/mucosa diseases, and zona zoster after COVID‐19. The frequency declined in diseases such as verruca vulgaris, hyperpigmentation, skin tag, melanocytic nevus, and seborrheic keratosis/solar lentigo. It has been found that the frequencies of most diseases, including acne (?25% of patients), did not change. We think that many factors, such as affecting the quality of life, risk perception, increased stress burden may cause a change in the diagnostic distribution of the dermatology applications.     

COVID‐19: Topical agents and therapeutic prevention of nasal viral acquisition

Since the spread of SARS‐CoV‐2 became a pandemic, the number of cases has been continuously growing worldwide. Numerous recommendations and suggestions have been published to prevent the acquisition and spread of the SARS‐CoV‐2, especially to protect health workers and front‐line caregivers. SARS‐CoV‐2 is transmitted by aerosol, rendering air defense with suitable ventilation and adequate mask use pivotal. Recently, locally applied antiseptic, antiviral, or structure competitive receptor blockers were suggested to attack the virus at its main point of invasion, the nasal mucosa and nasopharynx. We discuss the most plausible and safe ideas to reduce viral load at the point of entry, and subsequently the spread of SARS‐CoV‐2 to the lower respiratory tract, lungs, and other organs. In addition, we analyze the value and recommend clinical trials employing topical trichloroacetic acid (TCA), a substance well known from dermatologic and cosmetic procedures. It has been proven to successfully block the nasal entry for airborne allergens, preventing the development of allergic rhinitis and asthma, and to be curative for early stages of viral infections entering through the oral mucosa. For SARS‐CoV‐2, TCA in a single, short‐time application is expected to remodel the nasal and nasopharyngeal epithelia, eliminating both the receptors and cells responsible for viral entry and subsequent viral spread to the lower respiratory tract. Moreover, this may have therapeutic benefits for those recently infected by reducing local viral replication. Such procedures are cheap, safe, and can be conducted in almost every setting, especially in regions with inadequate financial and logistic resources.     

Novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) and neurodegenerative disorders

During the last few months, the whole humanity is experiencing largest and most severe sudden influx of COVID‐19 outbreak caused by the novel coronavirus (CoV) originated from Wuhan, China. According to the WHO reports, total 3 862 676 positive cases and 265 961 deaths have been recorded worldwide due to COVID‐19 infection as of May 9, 2020. CoVs are a large family of viruses (enveloped, single‐stranded RNA viruses), which includes severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS‐CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome‐related coronavirus (MERS‐CoV). New SARS CoV2 is the members of Betacoronavirus genus. These viruses cause infections in bats, camels and humans, and a few other associated species. Despite many neurologic complications associated with SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, it is still unclear whether these symptoms results from direct neural injury or due to some other reason. Currently, it appears that most of the neurological symptoms of COVID‐19 are nonspecific and secondary to the systemic illness. A single case of acute hemorrhagic necrotizing encephalopathy has been reported. SARS‐CoV‐2 associated Guillain‐Barré syndrome is an atypical case. Till today, no convincing evidence is available to confirm that the SARS‐CoV‐2 virus directly affects nerves system in humans. However, postinfection surveillance will be necessary to identify the possible post‐COVID‐19 neurologic syndromes.     

A Case of Pityriasis Rosea Concurrent with the Novel Influenza A (H1N1) Infection

Abstract: Pityriasis rosea is a common skin disease with a self‐limiting course. Multiple etiologies including viruses, bacteria, and fungi have been investigated in an attempt to confirm a casual association. Pityriasis rosea has not been associated with influenza virus, but has been associated with herpes simplex virus types 6 and 7. We encountered a case of a proven pandemic H1N1 infection associated with a clincopathological diagnosis of pityriasis rosea. We conclude that influenza A (H1N1) virus could either be a primary cause of pityriasis rosea or a trigger for reactivation of other viral causes.     

COVID‐19 and implications for dermatological and allergological diseases

COVID‐19, caused by the coronavirus SARS‐CoV‐2, has become pandemic. A further level of complexity opens up as soon as we look at diseases whose pathogenesis and therapy involve different immunological signaling pathways, which are potentially affected by COVID‐19. Medical treatments must often be reassessed and questioned in connection with this infection. This article summarizes the current knowledge of COVID‐19 in the light of major dermatological and allergological diseases. It identifies medical areas lacking sufficient data and draws conclusions for the management of our patients during the pandemic. We focus on common chronic inflammatory skin diseases with complex immunological pathogenesis: psoriasis, eczema including atopic dermatitis, type I allergies, autoimmune blistering and inflammatory connective tissue diseases, vasculitis, and skin cancers. Since several other inflammatory skin diseases display related or comparable immunological reactions, clustering of the various inflammatory dermatoses into different disease patterns may help with therapeutic decisions. Thus, following these patterns of skin inflammation, our review may supply treatment recommendations and thoughtful considerations for disease management even beyond the most frequent diseases discussed here.     

Suspected COVID‐19‐related reticulated purpura of the soles in an infant

A growing number of skin lesions during the COVID‐19 pandemic are being recognized. Acral ischemic lesions identical to chilblains are most typical in children and young adults. We report an infant girl, aged 1 month and 29 days, with a peculiar reticulated purpuric eruption on her soles, with positive immunohistochemistry for SARS‐CoV‐2 in the endothelia of dermal blood vessels. The patient had an excellent outcome without specific therapy.     

Dupilumab and COVID‐19: What should we expect?

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) is a pandemic disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) with high morbidity and mortality. There are very limited data on the interference of immunomodulating drugs on the risk of infection and on the course of the disease. In particular, there are no current clinical data about the interference exerted by dupilumab, a biologic drugs blocking IL‐4 and IL‐13, used for adult atopic dermatitis. The pathogenesis of COVID‐19 is complex, characterized by an immune response mainly Th1/Th17. The hyper‐activation of these cells may cause the release of pro‐inflammatory cytokines that may result in lung impairment. IL‐4 and IL‐13 are Th2 cytokines, thus being part of a pathway not considered implicated in host defense mechanism against viral infections. Indeed, viral infections, including respiratory infections, have not been reported as a significant adverse event in clinical trials. Furthermore, dupilumab has been proved to be efficacious also in exacerbations of asthma, and it is known that viral infections can worsen asthma. Therefore, the current data seem to suggest that treatment with dupilumab should not be stopped during COVID‐19 pandemic. Obviously, a careful assessment is mandatory for each individual patient and further studies are necessary to characterize the immunologic responses in COVID‐19.     

Six months into the pandemic. A review of skin manifestations in SARS‐CoV‐2 infection

During the COVID‐19 pandemic, various cutaneous manifestations have been described as associated with SARS‐CoV2 infection. It is debated if skin lesions could represent a diagnostic or prognostic indicator. Specifically, it is unclear whether skin lesions may be used to perform an early diagnosis and/or to predict worse outcomes. In this review, we described the cutaneous signs so far reported as COVID‐19‐related and discussed their incidence, clinico‐pathological features, and diagnostic and prognostic value.     

Tetracyclines in COVID‐19 patients quarantined at home: Literature evidence supporting real‐world data from a multicenter observational study targeting inflammatory and infectious dermatoses

Tetracyclines (TetraC) are widely used in dermatology for both inflammatory and infectious dermatoses; recently both in vivo and in vitro studies started to suggest also a potential antiviral effect. During COVID‐19 outbreak, several dermatological patients contracted SARS‐CoV‐2 experiencing only mild symptoms, but no protocol were approved. A multicenter prospective observational study that enrolled COVID‐19 patients visited with teledermatology and undergoing TetraC was performed. About 38 adult outpatients (M/F: 20/18, age 42.6 years [21‐67]) were enrolled. During the TetraC treatment, symptoms resolved in all patients within 10 days. Remarkably, ageusia and anosmia disappeared in the first week of TetraC treatment. TetraC seem a promising drug to treat COVID‐19 outpatients with mild symptoms.     

Dermatological diseases presented before COVID‐19: Are patients with psoriasis and superficial fungal infections more vulnerable to the COVID‐19?

Recent studies have focused on the comorbid conditions of the COVID‐19. According to the current studies, numerous diseases including lung disease, cardiovascular disease and immunosuppression appear to be at higher risk for severe forms of the COVID‐19. To date, there are no data in the literature on the comorbid dermatologic diseases and COVID‐19. We tried to analyze the previous dermatological comorbidity of 93 patients with COVID‐19 (51 males, 42 females) who presented to the dermatology outpatient clinics for the last 3 years. The most common dermatologic diseases in patients with COVID‐19 who have dermatologic diseases for the last 3 years were superficial fungal infections (24, 25.8%), seborrheic dermatitis (11, 11.8%), actinic keratosis (10, 10.8%), psoriasis (6, 6.5%), and eczema (6, 6.5%), respectively. In addition, the number of COVID‐19 patients who presented to dermatology in the last 3 months was 17 (11 men, 6 women). The median age of these patients was 58 (minimum 18, maximum 80) years, and the most common dermatologic diseases before diagnosed COVID‐19 were superficial fungal infections (5, 25%), psoriasis (4, 20%), and viral skin diseases (3, 15%). The possible similarity between cutaneous and mucosal immunity and immunosuppression suggests that patients with some dermatologic diseases especially superficial fungal infections and psoriasis may be more vulnerable to the COVID‐19.     

Will teledermatology be the silver lining during and after COVID‐19?

The novel coronavirus disease (COVID‐19) has limited traditional consultation and minimized health care access. Teledermatology (TD) has come to the rescue in this situation by extending consultation for nonessential conditions to the comfort of patient's homes. This limits the risk of exposure of both doctors and patients to the coronavirus (SARS‐CoV‐2). And while there is a reported increase in teleconsultations during the ongoing pandemic, there are some demerits that avert the shift to virtualized health care. The authors conducted an online survey to further understand the hesitancy, limitations, merits, and the demographic of dermatologists who were conducive to TD and these data were analyzed and presented in this article. While TD might never replace physical consultation, it definitely serves an adjunctive role in the post‐COVID era, provided adequate regulatory measures are in place.