-
International Journal of Clinical... Dec 2021Earlier diagnosis and the best management of virus-related, drug-related or mixed severe potentially life-threatening mucocutaneous reactions of COVID-19 patients are of... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
Earlier diagnosis and the best management of virus-related, drug-related or mixed severe potentially life-threatening mucocutaneous reactions of COVID-19 patients are of great concern. These patients, especially hospitalised cases, are usually in a complicated situation (because of multi-organ failures), which makes their management more challenging. In such consultant cases, achieving by the definite beneficial management strategies that therapeutically address all concurrent comorbidities are really hard to reach or even frequently impossible.
METHODS
According to the lack of any relevant systematic review, we thoroughly searched the databases until 5 October 2020 and finally found 57 articles including 93 patients. It is needed to know clinical presentations of these severe skin eruptions, signs and symptoms of COVID in these patients, time of skin rash appearance, classifying drug-related or virus-related skin lesions, classifying the type of skin rash, patients' outcome and concurrent both COVID-19 therapy and skin rash treatment.
RESULT
Severe and potential life-threatening mucocutaneous dermatologic manifestations of COVID-19 usually may be divided into three major categories: virus-associated, drug-associated, and those with uncertainty about the exact origin. Angioedema, vascular lesions, toxic shock syndrome, erythroderma, DRESS, haemorrhagic bulla, AGEP, EM, SJS and TEN, generalised pustular figurate erythema were the main entities found as severe dermatologic reactions in all categories.
CONCLUSION
We can conclude vascular injuries may be the most common cause of severe dermatologic manifestations of COVID-19, which is concordant with many proposed hypercoagulation tendencies and systemic inflammatory response syndrome as one of the most important pathomechanisms of COVID-19 so the skin may show these features in various presentations and degrees.
Topics: COVID-19; Erythema; Exanthema; Humans; SARS-CoV-2; Stevens-Johnson Syndrome
PubMed: 34411409
DOI: 10.1111/ijcp.14720 -
Experimental Dermatology Sep 2021The mucocutaneous manifestations of Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) logically may reflect systemic visceral involvements. These findings are visible and easy to...
A systematic review of the histopathologic survey on skin biopsies in patients with Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) who developed virus or drug-related mucocutaneous manifestations.
The mucocutaneous manifestations of Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) logically may reflect systemic visceral involvements. These findings are visible and easy to approach like biopsies for exact histopathologic evaluations. This systematic review was conducted to collect the mucocutaneous histopathologic data of COVID-19 patients for future investigations and interpretations. The COVID-19 dermatology resource of the Centre of Evidence-Based Dermatology (CEBD) at the University of Nottingham, PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar and Medscape was searched for relevant English articles published by June 3, 2020. This review included 31 articles, involving 459 patients. The common primary virus-related mucocutaneous manifestations are easy to approach in the course of COVID-19. The authors of this study supposed dermatopathological findings as the predictors of the nature of potential systemic involvements and outcomes of COVID-19. Scrutinizing these findings can help with adopting more effective therapeutic and management strategies; nevertheless, this review found the severity and time of onset of symptoms not to be associated with the laboratory and histopathological findings. Deterioration of clinical conditions and laboratory tests was also not related to the histopathological findings. It is recommended that meta-analyses be conducted in the future to detail on these data for having more comprehensive and better conclusion.
Topics: Biopsy; COVID-19; Drug Eruptions; Humans; Mucous Membrane; SARS-CoV-2; Skin; Skin Diseases
PubMed: 33977531
DOI: 10.1111/exd.14384 -
Indian Journal of Dermatology,... 2021Limited evidence is available about effectiveness and choice of immunomodulating treatment modalities for toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Limited evidence is available about effectiveness and choice of immunomodulating treatment modalities for toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN).
AIMS
To compare the effectiveness of interventions to reduce mortality in patients of toxic epidermal necrolysis through network meta-analysis.
METHODS
Studies were retrieved using PubMed, Google Scholar and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from inception to September 18, 2018. Only English language articles were considered. Observational and randomized controlled studies having ≥ 5 TEN patients in each intervention arm were included. Two investigators independently extracted study characteristics, intervention details and mortality data. Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed using the Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) approach through the random effect model. The ranking analysis was done to provide a hierarchy of interventions. The consistency between direct and indirect evidence was assessed through node spit analysis. The primary outcome was to compare the mortality [Odds ratio OR (95% credibility interval CrI)] among all treatment modalities of TEN.
RESULTS
Twenty-four studies satisfying the selection criteria were included. The network analysis showed improved survival with cyclosporine as compared to supportive care [OR- 0.19 (95% CrI: 0.05, 0.59)] and intravenous immunoglobulin [OR- 0.21 (95% CrI: 0.05, 0.76)]. The hierarchy of treatments based on "surface under the cumulative ranking curves" (SUCRA) value were cyclosporine (0.93), steroid+intravenous immunoglobulin (0.76), etanercept (0.59), steroids (0.46), intravenous immunoglobulin (0.40), supportive care (0.34) and thalidomide (0.02). No inconsistencies between direct and indirect estimates were observed for any of the treatment pairs.
LIMITATIONS
Evidence is mainly based on retrospective studies.
CONCLUSION
The use of cyclosporine can reduce mortality in TEN patients. Other promising immunomodulators could be steroid+intravenous immunoglobulin combination and etanercept.
Topics: Cyclosporine; Dermatologic Agents; Etanercept; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Immunoglobulins, Intravenous; Immunologic Factors; Immunosuppressive Agents; Stevens-Johnson Syndrome
PubMed: 33871208
DOI: 10.25259/IJDVL_605_19 -
Dermatologic Therapy Mar 2021In this systematic review, we anticipated in summarizing clinical features, histopathological hallmarks, and possible pathology behind the maculopapular skin eruptions... (Review)
Review
In this systematic review, we anticipated in summarizing clinical features, histopathological hallmarks, and possible pathology behind the maculopapular skin eruptions occurring in Covid-19 patients. A literature search was executed using MEDLINE/PubMed and Embase databases for articles published till 20 November 2020. All eligible articles including observational studies, case reports, and case series reporting the maculopapular skin lesion in Covid-19 patients were included. Data were obtained for 354 Covid-19 patients presenting with maculopapular lesions from 40 studies. The mean age of these patients was 53 years, and with 42% of them being male. These maculopapular lesions differed considerably in terms of distribution and appearance, ranging from diffuse erythematous maculopapular lesions to scattered erythematous macules coalescing into papules to maculopapular lesions in plaques. The mean duration of the lesion was 8 days. These lesions were frequently localized on trunks and extremities. Superficial perivascular dermatitis with lymphocytic infiltrate was a histopathological hallmark of these lesions. As these skin lesions may have a possible association with diagnosis, management, prognosis, and severity of the disease, all health practitioners need to be well acquainted with these Covid-19 skin lesions. Also, in the middle of this worldwide pandemic, early identification of this eruption may help manage this infection's further spread.
Topics: COVID-19; Drug Eruptions; Exanthema; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Pandemics; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 33481314
DOI: 10.1111/dth.14788 -
Medicine Dec 2020Several studies demonstrated a connection between human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-B∗1502 and lamotrigine (LTG)-induced cutaneous adverse drug reactions (cADRs). The... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Several studies demonstrated a connection between human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-B∗1502 and lamotrigine (LTG)-induced cutaneous adverse drug reactions (cADRs). The correlation between the HLA-A∗24:02 and LTG-cADRs remains controversial. To examine the associations between HLA-A∗24:02 and LTG-cADRs, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
We performed a comprehensive search of the literature in several electronic database systems including Cochrane Library, EMBASE and PubMed from inception to January 2020. Review Manager was used to compare the frequencies of HLA-A∗24:02 carriers between the subgroups.
RESULTS
A total of 5 studies were eligible, including 197 LTD-cADRs, 396 LTD-tolerant controls, and 2068 population controls. Compared with the LTG-tolerant controls, there was a statistically significant association between the HLA-A∗24:02 allele and LTG-induced cADRs (odds ratios: 1.94, 95% confidence intervals 1.06-3.54; P = .03). Compared with the general population, the relationship between the HLA-A∗24:02 genotype and LTG-induced cADRs was statistically significant (summary odds ratios: 2.12, 95% confidence intervals 1.04-4.30; P = .04).
CONCLUSIONS
HLA-A∗24:02 may be a risk factor for LTG-cADRs.
Topics: Anticonvulsants; Drug Eruptions; HLA-A24 Antigen; Humans; Lamotrigine; Pharmacogenomic Variants; Risk Factors
PubMed: 33350798
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000023929 -
Dermatologic Therapy Jan 2021Most of drugs could have certain mucocutaneous reactions and COVID-19 drugs are not an exception that we focused. We systematically reviewed databases until August 15,...
Most of drugs could have certain mucocutaneous reactions and COVID-19 drugs are not an exception that we focused. We systematically reviewed databases until August 15, 2020 and among initial 851 articles, 30 articles entered this study (20 case reports, 4 cohorts, and 6 controlled clinical trials). The types of reactions included AGEP, morbiliform drug eruptions, vasculitis, DRESS syndrome, urticarial vasculitis, and so on. The treatments have been used before side effects occur, included: antimalarial, anti-viral, antibiotics, tocilizumab, enoxaparin and and so on. In pandemic, we found 0.004% to 4.15% of definite drug-induced mucocutaneous reactions. The interval between drug usage and the eruption varied about few hours to 1 month; tightly dependent to the type of drug and hydroxychloroqine seems to be the drug with highest mean interval. Antivirals, antimalarials, azithromycin, and tocilizumab are most responsive drugs for adverse drug reactions, but antivirals especially in combination with antimalarial drugs are in the first step. Types of skin reactions are usually morbilliform/exanthematous maculopapular rashes or urticarial eruptions, which mostly may manage by steroids during few days. In the setting of HCQ, specific reactions like AGEP should be considered. Lopinavir/ritonavir is the most prevalent used drug among antivirals with the highest skin adverse reaction; ribarivin and remdisivir also could induce cutaneous drug reactions but favipiravir has no or less adverse effects. Logically the rate of dermatologic adverse effects among anivirals may relate to their frequency of usage. Rarely, potentially life-threatening reactions may occur. Better management strategies could achieve by knowing more about drug-induced mucocutaneous presentations of COVID-19.
Topics: Antiviral Agents; COVID-19; Humans; Hydroxychloroquine; Pandemics; SARS-CoV-2; Skin Diseases
PubMed: 33301232
DOI: 10.1111/dth.14662 -
Journal of the American Academy of... Mar 2021
Meta-Analysis
Incidence of dermatologic adverse events in patients with cancer treated with concurrent immune checkpoint inhibitors and radiation therapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Topics: Chemoradiotherapy; Clinical Trials as Topic; Drug Eruptions; Humans; Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors; Incidence; Neoplasms; Radiodermatitis
PubMed: 33137440
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2020.10.071 -
Oncology Research and Treatment 2020Capecitabine is frequently used alone or combined with other chemotherapy agents for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer in relapsed patients. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Efficacy and Safety of Capecitabine Alone or in Combination in Advanced Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients Previously Treated with Anthracycline and Taxane: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
BACKGROUND
Capecitabine is frequently used alone or combined with other chemotherapy agents for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer in relapsed patients.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of capecitabine monotherapy versus combination in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer patients pretreated with anthracycline and taxane.
METHODS
Eligible randomized controlled trials examining the efficacy and safety of capecitabine alone compared to capecitabine combination were systematically searched. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), and grades 3-4 drug-related adverse events were the outcomes assessed.
RESULTS
A total of 6,714 patients of 9 trials were involved in the pooled analysis. Our findings demonstrated that capecitabine combination is significantly superior to capecitabine monotherapy in improving PFS (hazard ratio [HR] 1.32, 95% CI 1.13-1.54, p < 0.0001) and ORR (risk ratio [RR] 0.67, 95% CI 0.54-0.83, p < 0.001), but it was insignificant in OS (HR 1.09, 95% CI 0.98-1.22, p = 0.12). On the other hand, the incidence of non-hematological adverse events such as hand-foot syndrome and diarrhea was lower in capecitabine combination compared to capecitabine monotherapy.
CONCLUSION
Capecitabine-based combination chemotherapy showed superiority over capecitabine monotherapy in terms of PFS and ORR, with no significant difference in OS. Non-hematological adverse effects such as hand-foot syndrome were fewer with a combination regimen. However, hematological adverse events were fewer with capecitabine monotherapy regimen.
Topics: Anthracyclines; Antimetabolites, Antineoplastic; Antineoplastic Agents; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Breast Neoplasms; Bridged-Ring Compounds; Capecitabine; Diarrhea; Female; Hand-Foot Syndrome; Humans; Middle Aged; Progression-Free Survival; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Survival Rate; Taxoids; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32950984
DOI: 10.1159/000510356 -
Medicine Sep 2020Long-term use of corticosteroid ointment for external using or skin management products and cosmetics containing corticosteroid will produce a hormone-dependent effect...
BACKGROUND
Long-term use of corticosteroid ointment for external using or skin management products and cosmetics containing corticosteroid will produce a hormone-dependent effect on facial skin and destroy the barrier function of the skin. It is easy to cause repeated attacks of facial skin inflammation after drug withdrawal because corticosteroid hormones can cause the expression of inflammatory factors in the body, which has a serious impact on patients. The general treatment method is to stop using hormone drugs for psychotherapy and inform patients of the basic knowledge of hormone-dependent dermatitis and daily facial care, but the effect is not good. At present, non-steroidal ointment tacrolimus (a calcineurin inhibitor) is widely used in the treatment of hormone-dependent dermatitis. Tacrolimus ointment is effective for corticosteroid-dependent dermatitis, but adverse events can also occur.
METHODS
We plan to searched all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) fortacrolimus ointment therapy of hormone-dependent dermatitis in: MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Springer and Web of Science, China Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), China Science Journal Database (VIP database) and Wanfang Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), without the limitation of publication status and language until September 1, 2020. The systematic review will also search will also search for identify publications, meeting minutes, and grey literature (including unpublished meeting articles).
DISCUSSION
The systematic review mainly to access the safety and efficacy of tacrolimus ointment for hormone-dependent dermatitis (facial corticosteroid addiction dermatitis and facial steroid dermatitis). The results of our research will facilitate evidence-based management of patients with facial corticosteroid-dependent dermatitis and provide clinical advice on their treatment options.
REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42020171813.
Topics: Administration, Cutaneous; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Calcineurin Inhibitors; Drug Eruptions; Humans; Ointments; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Research Design; Tacrolimus
PubMed: 32925777
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000022159 -
Annals of Internal Medicine Nov 2020Patients and clinicians can choose from several treatment options to address acute pain from non-low back, musculoskeletal injuries. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Patients and clinicians can choose from several treatment options to address acute pain from non-low back, musculoskeletal injuries.
PURPOSE
To assess the comparative effectiveness of outpatient treatments for acute pain from non-low back, musculoskeletal injuries by performing a network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs).
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro (Physiotherapy Evidence Database), and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to 2 January 2020.
STUDY SELECTION
Pairs of reviewers independently identified interventional RCTs that enrolled patients presenting with pain of up to 4 weeks' duration from non-low back, musculoskeletal injuries.
DATA EXTRACTION
Pairs of reviewers independently extracted data. Certainty of evidence was evaluated by using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach.
DATA SYNTHESIS
The 207 eligible studies included 32 959 participants and evaluated 45 therapies. Ninety-nine trials (48%) enrolled populations with diverse musculoskeletal injuries, 59 (29%) included patients with sprains, 13 (6%) with whiplash, and 11 (5%) with muscle strains; the remaining trials included various injuries ranging from nonsurgical fractures to contusions. Topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents (NSAIDs) proved to have the greatest net benefit, followed by oral NSAIDs and acetaminophen with or without diclofenac. Effects of these agents on pain were modest (around 1 cm on a 10-cm visual analogue scale, approximating the minimal important difference). Regarding opioids, compared with placebo, acetaminophen plus an opioid improved intermediate pain (1 to 7 days) but not immediate pain (≤2 hours), tramadol was ineffective, and opioids increased the risk for gastrointestinal and neurologic harms (all moderate-certainty evidence).
LIMITATIONS
Only English-language studies were included. The number of head-to-head comparisons was limited.
CONCLUSION
Topical NSAIDs, followed by oral NSAIDs and acetaminophen with or without diclofenac, showed the most convincing and attractive benefit-harm ratio for patients with acute pain from non-low back, musculoskeletal injuries. No opioid achieved benefit greater than that of NSAIDs, and opioids caused the most harms.
PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE
National Safety Council. (PROSPERO: CRD42018094412).
Topics: Acetaminophen; Acute Pain; Administration, Oral; Administration, Topical; Analgesics, Opioid; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Comparative Effectiveness Research; Diclofenac; Drug Eruptions; Gastrointestinal Diseases; Humans; Musculoskeletal System; Nervous System Diseases; Network Meta-Analysis; Patient Satisfaction; Physical Functional Performance; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 32805127
DOI: 10.7326/M19-3601