Cutaneous side effects of hydroxychloroquine in health care workers in a COVID referral hospital – implications for clinical practice

Safety of Short-Term Treatments with Oral Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine in Patients with and without COVID-19: A Systematic Review

Chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) have recently become the focus of global attention as possible treatments for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). The current systematic review aims to assess their safety in short treatments (≤14 days), whether used alone or in combination with other drugs. Following the PRISMA and SWiM recommendations, a search was conducted using four health databases for all relevant English-, Chinese-, and Spanish-language studies from inception through 30 July 2021. Patients treated for any condition and with any comparator were included. The outcomes of interest were early drug adverse effects and their frequency. A total of 254 articles met the inclusion criteria, including case and case-control reports as well as cross-sectional, cohort, and randomised studies. The results were summarised either qualitatively in table or narrative form or, when possible (99 studies), quantitatively in terms of adverse event frequencies. Quality evaluation was conducted using the CARE, STROBE, and JADAD tools. This systematic review showed that safety depended on drug indication. In COVID-19 patients, cardiac adverse effects, such as corrected QT interval prolongation, were relatively frequent (0–27.3% and up to 33% if combined with azithromycin), though the risk of torsade de pointes was low. Compared to non-COVID-19 patients, COVID-19 patients experienced a higher frequency of cardiac adverse effects regardless of the regimen used. Dermatological adverse effects affected 0–10% of patients with autoimmune diseases and COVID-19. A broad spectrum of neuropsychiatric adverse effects affected patients treated with CQ for malaria with variable frequencies and some cases were reported in COVID-19 patients. Gastrointestinal adverse effects occurred regardless of drug indication affecting 0–50% of patients. In conclusion, CQ and HCQ are two safe drugs widely used in the treatment of malaria and autoimmune diseases. However, recent findings on their cardiac and neuropsychiatric adverse effects should be considered if these drugs were to be proposed as antivirals again.

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.

Indian Association of Dermatologists, Venereologists and Leprologists (IADVL) Task Force against Recalcitrant Tinea (ITART) Consensus on the Management of Glabrous Tinea (INTACT)

Background and Aims:

Dermatophytosis has always been a common superficial mycosis in India. However, the past 6-7 years have seen an unprecedented increase in the number of patients affected by recurrent, chronic, recalcitrant and steroid modified dermatophytosis involving the glabrous skin (tinea corporis, tinea cruris and tinea faciei). Importantly, there has been a notable decrease in clinical responsiveness to commonly used antifungals given in conventional doses and durations resulting in difficult-to-treat infections. Considering that scientific data on the management of the current epidemic of dermatophytosis in India are inadequate, the Indian Association of Dermatologists, Venereologists and Leprologists (IADVL) Task force Against Recalcitrant Tinea (ITART) has formulated a consensus statement on the management of dermatophytosis in India.

Methods:

Seventeen dermatologists with a focussed interest in dermatophytosis participated in a Delphi consensus method, conducted in three rounds. They responded as either “agree” or “disagree” to 132 statements prepared by the lead experts and gave their comments. Consensus was defined as an agreement of 80% or higher concurrence. Statements on which there was no consensus were modified based on the comments and were then recirculated. The results were finally analysed in a face-to-face meeting and the responses were further evaluated. A draft of the consensus was circulated among the participants and modified based on their inputs.

Results:

Consensus was achieved on 90 of the 132 statements. Direct microscopy using potassium hydroxide mount was recommended in case of diagnostic difficulty on clinical examination. Counselling of patients about strict adherence to general measures and compliance to treatment was strongly recommended as the key to successful management of dermatophytosis. A combination of systemic and topical antifungal drugs was recommended for the treatment of glabrous tinea in the current scenario. Topical corticosteroid use, whether used alone or in combination with other components, was strongly discouraged by all the experts. It was suggested that topical antifungals may be continued for 2 weeks beyond clinical resolution. Itraconazole and terbinafine were recommended to be used as the first line options in systemic therapy, whereas griseofulvin and fluconazole are alternatives. Terbinafine was agreed to be used as a first line systemic agent in treatment naïve and terbinafine naïve patients with glabrous tinea. Regular follow-up of patients to ensure compliance and monitoring of clinical response was recommended by the experts, both during treatment and for at least 4 weeks after apparent clinical cure. Longer duration of treatment was recommended for patients with chronic, recurrent and steroid modified dermatophytosis.

Conclusion:

Consensus in the management of dermatophytosis is necessary in the face of conventional regimens proving ineffective and dearth of clinical trials re-evaluating the role of available antifungals in the wake of evolving epidemiology of the infection in the country. It needs to be backed by more research to provide the required level of evidence. It is hoped that this consensus statement improves the quality of care for patients with dermatophytosis, which has emerged as a huge public health problem, imposing considerable financial burden on the country.