-
Contact Dermatitis Dec 2022The 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... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
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.
Topics: Humans; Masks; Pandemics; COVID-19; Cross-Sectional Studies; Dermatitis, Allergic Contact; Facial Dermatoses
PubMed: 35980367
DOI: 10.1111/cod.14203 -
Journal of Neuroimmunology Oct 2022Neurosarcoidosis is a rare disorder in children. We identified 30 pediatric NS cases through a systematic review. Twenty-one (70%) had systemic sarcoidosis with 30%...
Neurosarcoidosis is a rare disorder in children. We identified 30 pediatric NS cases through a systematic review. Twenty-one (70%) had systemic sarcoidosis with 30% having primary neurosarcoidosis. Eyes (37%), lymph nodes (37%) and lungs (30%) were most commonly involved. Isolated neurosarcoidosis were more likely in children (30%) than in adults (6%, p = 0.0005). Seizures and optic neuritis were also more common in children than adults (33% vs 14%, p = 0.002; and 30% versus 6%, p = 0.008, respectively). Evaluation, imaging, laboratory findings, and treatments are discussed. Additional research, including multi-center studies, is needed.
Topics: Adult; Central Nervous System Diseases; Child; Humans; Lung; Optic Neuritis; Sarcoidosis
PubMed: 35944453
DOI: 10.1016/j.jneuroim.2022.577938 -
Rheumatology International Dec 2022We aimed to summarise effects and use of non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatments for sarcoidosis with musculoskeletal manifestations. We systematically... (Review)
Review
We aimed to summarise effects and use of non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatments for sarcoidosis with musculoskeletal manifestations. We systematically searched the Cochrane Library, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, AMED, Scopus, clinical.trials.gov, PROSPERO and PEDro for systematic reviews from 2014 to 2022 and for primary studies from date of inception to March 29, 2022, and studies with patients diagnosed with sarcoidosis with musculoskeletal manifestations. Inclusion criteria required that studies reported effects of non-pharmacological and/or pharmacological treatments or number of patients receiving these treatments. Results were reported narratively and in forest plots. Eleven studies were included. No systematic reviews fulfilled our inclusion criteria. None of the included studies had a control group. We found that between 23 and 100% received corticosteroids, 0-100% received NSAIDs, 5-100% received hydroxychloroquine, 12-100% received methotrexate, 0-100% received TNF inhibitors, and 3-4% received azathioprine. Only ten patients in one study had used non-pharmacological treatments, including occupational therapy, chiropractic and acupuncture. There are no controlled studies on treatment effects for patients with sarcoidosis with musculoskeletal manifestations. We found 11 studies reporting use of pharmacological treatments and only one study reporting use of non-pharmacological treatments. Our study identified major research gaps for pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment in musculoskeletal sarcoidosis and warrant randomised clinical trials for both.
Topics: Humans; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Azathioprine; Hydroxychloroquine; Methotrexate; Sarcoidosis; Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors
PubMed: 35943526
DOI: 10.1007/s00296-022-05171-8 -
International Journal of Environmental... Jun 2022The safety assessment of cosmetics considers the exposure of a 'common consumer', not the occupational exposure of hairdressers. This review aims to compile and appraise... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The safety assessment of cosmetics considers the exposure of a 'common consumer', not the occupational exposure of hairdressers. This review aims to compile and appraise evidence regarding the skin toxicity of cysteamine hydrochloride (cysteamine HCl; CAS no. 156-57-0), polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP; CAS no. 9003-39-8), PVP copolymers (CAS no. 28211-18-9), sodium laureth sulfate (SLES; CAS no. 9004-82-4), cocamide diethanolamine (cocamide DEA; CAS no. 68603-42-9), and cocamidopropyl betaine (CAPB; CAS no. 61789-40-0). A total of 298 articles were identified, of which 70 were included. Meta-analysis revealed that hairdressers have a 1.7-fold increased risk of developing a contact allergy to CAPB compared to controls who are not hairdressers. Hairdressers might have a higher risk of acquiring quantum sensitization against cysteamine HCl compared to a consumer because of their job responsibilities. Regarding cocamide DEA, the irritant potential of this surfactant should not be overlooked. Original articles for PVP, PVP copolymers, and SLES are lacking. This systematic review indicates that the current standards do not effectively address the occupational risks associated with hairdressers' usage of hair cosmetics. The considerable irritant and/or allergenic potential of substances used in hair cosmetics should prompt a reassessment of current risk assessment practices.
Topics: Allergens; Cysteamine; Dermatitis, Allergic Contact; Hair Preparations; Humans; Irritants; Occupational Exposure
PubMed: 35805241
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19137588 -
PloS One 2022The existing evidence demonstrates that survivors of SJS/TEN have reported long-lasting psychological effects of their condition. Burns patients experience similar...
Psychotherapeutic interventions for burns patients and the potential use with Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis patients: A systematic integrative review.
BACKGROUND
The existing evidence demonstrates that survivors of SJS/TEN have reported long-lasting psychological effects of their condition. Burns patients experience similar psychological effects. It is important to look at ways to help allay the psychological complications of SJS/TEN. As there is an absence of evidence on SJS/TEN psychotherapeutic interventions, it was judged to be beneficial to determine the evidence underpinning psychotherapeutic interventions used with burns patients.
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
The aim of this systematic integrative review was to synthesize the evidence relating to psychotherapeutic interventions used with adult burns patients and patients with SJS/TEN.
METHOD
The systematic review was guided by Whittemore and Knafl's integrative review process and the PRISMA guidelines. Nine databases were searched for English and French language papers published January 2008 to January 2021. The protocol for the review was registered with PROSPERO.
RESULTS
Following a screening process, 17 studies were included in the review. Two themes were identified using content analysis, (i) Empirically supported psychotherapeutic treatments, (ii) Alternative psychotherapeutic treatments. This review revealed no evidence on specific psychotherapeutic interventions for patients with SJS/TEN. Some of the interventions used with burns patients, viz. relaxation therapy, hypnosis and cognitive behavioral therapy showed some significant benefits. However, the evidence for burns patients is mainly focused on pain and pain anxiety as outcomes.
CONCLUSION
Following further research, some of the interventions deployed in burns patients may be applicable to SJS/TEN patients, particularly stress reduction techniques. In addition, the caring behaviours such as compassion, respect, and getting to know the patient as a person are important components to psychological care.
Topics: Adult; Burns; Databases, Factual; Humans; Pain; Retrospective Studies; Stevens-Johnson Syndrome
PubMed: 35759493
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0270424 -
Contact Dermatitis Oct 2022Hand eczema is a common inflammatory condition of the skin that has been linked to hand hygiene. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to determine the risks of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Hand eczema is a common inflammatory condition of the skin that has been linked to hand hygiene. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to determine the risks of hand eczema associated with hand hygiene, including frequency of hand washing, wet work and use of alcohol hand rub. A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library was performed for cohort, case-control or cross-sectional studies that analysed the association between hand hygiene and risk of hand eczema. Results of individual studies were presented in respective forest plots and pooled summary relative risks were estimated using a random-effects model. Forty-five studies were included in the analysis. Hand washing at least 8-10 times daily significantly increased risk of hand eczema (relative risk [RR] 1.51; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.35-1.68; p < 0.001). The risk was related to hand washing frequency, with higher pooled RR of 1.66 (95% CI: 1.51-1.83; p < 0.001) with increased hand washing at least 15-20 times daily. However, use of alcohol-based hand sanitizer was not significantly associated with risk of hand eczema. Given the widespread implementation of hand hygiene practices during the COVID-19 pandemic, there is a pertinent need to understand skin care habits specific to the hands to avoid a greater incidence of hand eczema.
Topics: COVID-19; Cross-Sectional Studies; Dermatitis, Allergic Contact; Eczema; Hand Disinfection; Hand Hygiene; Humans; Pandemics
PubMed: 35460528
DOI: 10.1111/cod.14133 -
Frontiers in Allergy 2022Gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCAs) are frequently used in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations to increase sensitivity in diagnoses. Recently, an increase...
Gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCAs) are frequently used in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations to increase sensitivity in diagnoses. Recently, an increase in the description of hypersensitivity reactions to GBCAs has been detected. We performed research in PubMed, PubMed, SCOPUS, and EMBASE until September 2021, searching for studies regarding immediate and delayed hypersensitivity reactions to gadolinium-based contrast agents in which an allergy study was performed. The initial research identified 149 articles written in English. After excluding articles duplicated and articles that had irrelevant designs, 26 articles were included. Finally, 17 studies concerning immediate reactions, six studies concerning non-immediate reactions, and three concerning both that performed allergy evaluations were selected. In the review, we analyzed the characteristics of immediate and delayed reactions and the results of the allergy study and cross-reactivity. Skin tests seem to have acceptable accuracy, but drug provocation tests are still needed when skin tests are negative o to find alternative agents. Although cross-reactivity patterns are not well established, cross-reactivity seems to exist among macrocyclic agents. Notwithstanding, the number of patients analyzed is low and further studies are required. A management algorithm is suggested.
PubMed: 35386665
DOI: 10.3389/falgy.2022.813927 -
Dermatologic Therapy Jun 2022With dermatologic side effects being fairly prevalent following vaccination against COVID-19, and the multitude of studies aiming to report and analyze these adverse... (Review)
Review
A systematic review on mucocutaneous presentations after COVID-19 vaccination and expert recommendations about vaccination of important immune-mediated dermatologic disorders.
With dermatologic side effects being fairly prevalent following vaccination against COVID-19, and the multitude of studies aiming to report and analyze these adverse events, the need for an extensive investigation on previous studies seemed urgent, in order to provide a thorough body of information about these post-COVID-19 immunization mucocutaneous reactions. To achieve this goal, a comprehensive electronic search was performed through the international databases including Medline (PubMed), Scopus, Cochrane, Web of science, and Google scholar on July 12, 2021, and all articles regarding mucocutaneous manifestations and considerations after COVID-19 vaccine administration were retrieved using the following keywords: COVID-19 vaccine, dermatology considerations and mucocutaneous manifestations. A total of 917 records were retrieved and a final number of 180 articles were included in data extraction. Mild, moderate, severe and potentially life-threatening adverse events have been reported following immunization with COVID vaccines, through case reports, case series, observational studies, randomized clinical trials, and further recommendations and consensus position papers regarding vaccination. In this systematic review, we categorized these results in detail into five elaborate tables, making what we believe to be an extensively informative, unprecedented set of data on this topic. Based on our findings, in the viewpoint of the pros and cons of vaccination, mucocutaneous adverse events were mostly non-significant, self-limiting reactions, and for the more uncommon moderate to severe reactions, guidelines and consensus position papers could be of great importance to provide those at higher risks and those with specific worries of flare-ups or inefficient immunization, with sufficient recommendations to safely schedule their vaccine doses, or avoid vaccination if they have the discussed contra-indications.
Topics: COVID-19; COVID-19 Vaccines; Humans; Mucous Membrane; Skin; Vaccination
PubMed: 35316551
DOI: 10.1111/dth.15461 -
Contact Dermatitis Sep 2022Evidence regarding the association between lifestyle factors and hand eczema is limited.To extensively investigate the association between lifestyle factors (smoking,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Evidence regarding the association between lifestyle factors and hand eczema is limited.To extensively investigate the association between lifestyle factors (smoking, alcohol consumption, stress, physical activity, body mass index, diet, and sleep) and the prevalence, incidence, subtype, severity, and prognosis of hand eczema, a systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted in accordance with the Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology consensus statement. MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science were searched up to October 2021. The (modified) Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to judge risk of bias. Quality of the evidence was rated using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Eligibility and quality were blindly assessed by two independent investigators; disagreements were resolved by a third investigator. Data were pooled using a random-effects model, and when insufficient for a meta-analysis, evidence was narratively summarized. Fifty-five studies were included. The meta-analysis (17 studies) found very low quality evidence that smoking is associated with a higher prevalence of hand eczema (odds ratio 1.18, 95% confidence interval 1.09-1.26). No convincing evidence of associations for the other lifestyle factors with hand eczema were found, mostly due to heterogeneity, conflicting results, and/or the limited number of studies per outcome.
Topics: Dermatitis, Allergic Contact; Eczema; Humans; Life Style; Odds Ratio; Smoking
PubMed: 35277987
DOI: 10.1111/cod.14102 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2022Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS), toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN), and SJS/TEN overlap syndrome are rare, severe cutaneous adverse reactions usually triggered by... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS), toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN), and SJS/TEN overlap syndrome are rare, severe cutaneous adverse reactions usually triggered by medications. In addition to tertiary-level supportive care, various systemic therapies have been used including glucocorticoids, intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIGs), cyclosporin, N-acetylcysteine, thalidomide, infliximab, etanercept, and plasmapheresis. There is an unmet need to understand the efficacy of these interventions.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of systemic therapies (medicines delivered orally, intramuscularly, or intravenously) for the treatment of SJS, TEN, and SJS/TEN overlap syndrome.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases up to March 2021: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase. We also searched five clinical trial registers, the reference lists of all included studies and of key review articles, and a number of drug manufacturer websites. We searched for errata or retractions of included studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective observational comparative studies of participants of any age with a clinical diagnosis of SJS, TEN, or SJS/TEN overlap syndrome. We included all systemic therapies studied to date and permitted comparisons between each therapy, as well as between therapy and placebo.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures as specified by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were SJS/TEN-specific mortality and adverse effects leading to discontinuation of SJS/TEN therapy. Secondary outcomes included time to complete re-epithelialisation, intensive care unit length of stay, total hospital length of stay, illness sequelae, and other adverse effects attributed to systemic therapy. We rated the certainty of the evidence for each outcome using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included nine studies with a total of 308 participants (131 males and 155 females) from seven countries. We included two studies in the quantitative meta-analysis. We included three RCTs and six prospective, controlled observational studies. Sample sizes ranged from 10 to 91. Most studies did not report study duration or time to follow-up. Two studies reported a mean SCORe of Toxic Epidermal Necrosis (SCORTEN) of 3 and 1.9. Seven studies did not report SCORTEN, although four of these studies reported average or ranges of body surface area (BSA) (means ranging from 44% to 51%). Two studies were set in burns units, two in dermatology wards, one in an intensive care unit, one in a paediatric ward, and three in unspecified inpatient units. Seven studies reported a mean age, which ranged from 29 to 56 years. Two studies included paediatric participants (23 children). We assessed the results from one of three RCTs as low risk of bias in all domains, one as high, and one as some concerns. We judged the results from all six prospective observational comparative studies to be at a high risk of bias. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence because of serious risk of bias concerns and for imprecision due to small numbers of participants. The interventions assessed included systemic corticosteroids, tumour necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha) inhibitors, cyclosporin, thalidomide, N-acetylcysteine, IVIG, and supportive care. No data were available for the main comparisons of interest as specified in the review protocol: etanercept versus cyclosporin, etanercept versus IVIG, IVIG versus supportive care, IVIG versus cyclosporin, and cyclosporin versus corticosteroids. Corticosteroids versus no corticosteroids It is uncertain if there is any difference between corticosteroids (methylprednisolone 4 mg/kg/day for two more days after fever had subsided and no new lesions had developed) and no corticosteroids on disease-specific mortality (risk ratio (RR) 2.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 9.03; 2 studies; 56 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Time to complete re-epithelialisation, length of hospital stay, and adverse effects leading to discontinuation of therapy were not reported. IVIG versus no IVIG It is uncertain if there is any difference between IVIG (0.2 to 0.5 g/kg cumulative dose over three days) and no IVIG in risk of disease-specific mortality (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.91); time to complete re-epithelialisation (mean difference (MD) -2.93 days, 95% CI -4.4 to -1.46); or length of hospital stay (MD -2.00 days, 95% CI -5.81 to 1.81). All results in this comparison were based on one study with 36 participants, and very low-certainty evidence. Adverse effects leading to discontinuation of therapy were not reported. Etanercept (TNF-alpha inhibitor) versus corticosteroids Etanercept (25 mg (50 mg if weight > 65 kg) twice weekly "until skin lesions healed") may reduce disease-specific mortality compared to corticosteroids (intravenous prednisolone 1 to 1.5 mg/kg/day "until skin lesions healed") (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.63; 1 study; 91 participants; low-certainty evidence); however, the CIs were consistent with possible benefit and possible harm. Serious adverse events, such as sepsis and respiratory failure, were reported in 5 of 48 participants with etanercept and 9 of 43 participants with corticosteroids, but it was not clear if they led to discontinuation of therapy. Time to complete re-epithelialisation and length of hospital stay were not reported. Cyclosporin versus IVIG It is uncertain if there is any difference between cyclosporin (3 mg/kg/day or intravenous 1 mg/kg/day until complete re-epithelialisation, then tapered off (10 mg/day reduction every 48 hours)) and IVIG (continuous infusion 0.75 g/kg/day for 4 days (total dose 3 g/kg) in participants with normal renal function) in risk of disease-specific mortality (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.98, 1 study; 22 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Time to complete re-epithelialisation, length of hospital stay, and adverse effects leading to discontinuation of therapy were not reported. No studies measured intensive care unit length of stay.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
When compared to corticosteroids, etanercept may result in mortality reduction. For the following comparisons, the certainty of the evidence for disease-specific mortality is very low: corticosteroids versus no corticosteroids, IVIG versus no IVIG and cyclosporin versus IVIG. There is a need for more multicentric studies, focused on the most important clinical comparisons, to provide reliable answers about the best treatments for SJS/TEN.
Topics: Acetylcysteine; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adult; Autoimmune Diseases; Child; Cyclosporine; Etanercept; Female; Humans; Immunoglobulins, Intravenous; Male; Middle Aged; Observational Studies as Topic; Stevens-Johnson Syndrome; Thalidomide; Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha
PubMed: 35274741
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013130.pub2