COVID-19-related cutaneous manifestations associated with multiple drug sensitization as shown by lymphocyte transformation test

Value of the Lymphocyte Transformation Test for the Diagnosis of Drug-Induced Hypersensitivity Reactions in Hospitalized Patients with Severe COVID-19

In the first wave of COVID-19, up to 20% of patients had skin lesions with variable characteristics. There is no clear evidence of the involvement of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in all cases; some of these lesions may be secondary to drug hypersensitivity. To analyze the possible cause of the skin lesions, we performed a complete allergology study on 11 patients. One year after recovery from COVID-19, we performed a lymphocyte transformation test (LTT) and Th1/Th2 cytokine secretion assays for PBMCs. We included five nonallergic patients treated with the same drugs without lesions. Except for one patient who had an immediate reaction to azithromycin, all patients had a positive LTT result for at least one of the drugs tested (azithromycin, clavulanic acid, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir, and ritonavir). None of the nonallergic patients had a positive LTT result. We found mixed Th1/Th2 cytokine secretion (IL-4, IL-5, IL-13, and IFN-γ) in patients with skin lesions corresponding to mixed drug hypersensitivity type IVa and IVb. In all cases, we identified a candidate drug as the culprit for skin lesions during SARS-CoV-2 infection, although only three patients had a positive drug challenge. Therefore, it would be reasonable to recommend avoiding the drug in question in all cases.

Disparities in the Use of Teledermatology During the COVID-19 Pandemic Lockdown in a Pediatric Dermatology Practice

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic required a rapid expansion of teledermatology services. Objective: Analyze demographic shifts in a pediatric dermatology practice session with children of color. Methods: A retrospective chart review of pediatric dermatology patients seen in the 4 practice weeks preceding the New York COVID-19 lockdown and comparable teledermatology visits during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown. Demographic differences (e.g., race, age, gender, and household income) were analyzed. Results: A greater proportion of patients seen were White during lockdown (59.7%), compared with pre-lockdown (43.6%), with a reduction in Asian patients seen in lockdown (6.0%) compared with pre-lockdown (24.5%). A lower proportion of no-show patients (4.3%, 3/70 scheduled) were noted in lockdown compared with pre-lockdown (16%, 18/112). Preferred provider organizations (PPO) and higher-income zip codes were more common for children seen during lockdown. Limitations: The sample addresses a limited New York pediatric dermatology practice during a short time period. Conclusions: White patients and patients with PPO were more likely to access telehealth, supporting disparity in teledermatology services. These results demonstrate reduced health care access for lower-income and Asian children during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown.

Teledermatology in the time of COVID-19

AIMS

The enormous spread of the novel Corona virus disease (COVID-19) represents a challenge to dermatological practice. Accumulating evidence has suggested a possible role of teledermatology in facing this challenge. In this article, we aimed to give a general overview of teledermatology in terms of models of practice, modes of delivery, advantages, limitations, ethical considerations and legislative challenges as well as discussing, using examples from literature, how dermatological practice can benefit from teledermatology during the time of the COVID-19 pandemic.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Teledermatology could be an accessible, accurate and cost-effective substitute for conventional face-to-face dermatological consultations during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, teledermatology practice needs updated legislation and guidelines. More efforts should be done to encourage dermatologists, especially in underserved communities, to provide teledermatology services. Ethical issues and data security related to teledermatology have to be considered.

A systematic review on treatment-related mucocutaneous reactions in COVID-19 patients

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.