Facial atopic dermatitis may be exacerbate by masks: Insights from a multicenter, teledermatology, prospective study during COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) display a defective skin barrier, consequently they may experience inflammatory flares with different exposures, including masks. Actually, beside scattering case reports, no study focused on the possible AD flaring due to masks. METHODS: In this multicenter prospective study AD patients with facial manifestation were followed with teledermatology and evaluated by two board-certified dermatologists at the baseline (T0) and after 1 month (T1) in which patients started to wear masks >6 hours per day. Demographics and clinical parameters, included and not limited to Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), were carefully collected and analyzed. RESULTS: We enrolled 57 AD patients (M/F 28/29, 33.91 ± 12.26 yoa) that wore surgical masks (38 (66.7%)), community masks (11 (19.3%) and N95 (8 (14.0%)). Both DLQI and EASI increase during the time period (p<0.0001). DLQI variation was not influenced by age, BMI, and gender, mask type used and AD therapy (p=0.99), whilst EASI variation was significantly influenced by BMI, gender, and therapy (p=0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Mask wearing may prove detrimental to patients with atopic eczema and the same may not necessarily be the case for asthma patients.

COVID-19 first lockdown and outpatient hospital setting: a single center, real life study focusing on pattern changes in patients' ethnicities and treated dermatoses.

BACKGROUND: During the first Italian lockdown period, the imponent amount of hospital COVID-19 patients forced the healthcare system to re-organize visits but no information are available on outpatient ethnical patterns. Here we evaluated healthcare management changes on dermatological outpatient non-surgical settings visits during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. METHODS: In this retrospective study we collected data of scheduled, performed and not-performed visits, together with patients' characteristics (i.e., age, gender) with a particular attention for ethnicities among the outpatients accessing during the first Italian lockdown (March 5-April 30, 2020). Then, we compared these data with the corresponding ones in 2019 (before COVID-19 pandemic). RESULTS: During the Italian lockdown the dermatological department registered a great decrement (-83.5%, P<0.001) in visits compared to the corresponding time period in 2019. Performed and scheduled visits to non-oncological stable patients together with emergency accesses to dermatology decreased. Non-Italian patients decreased accesses, especially the South East Asians (-70.4%) and North Africans (-90.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Hospitals policy and mass media deeply condition the public opinion, and this aspect may explain a different access to the hospital among non-Italian patients. Telemedicine should be promoted especially among non-Italian communities in Italy to overgo patients' skepticism and incentivize prevention and early treatment in dermatological conditions.

Masks trigger facial seborrheic dermatitis and psoriasis: evidence from a multicenter, case-control study during COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Wearing masks is an optimal preventive strategy during COVID-19 pandemic, but it may increase facial sebum production. However, few case reports have described seborrheic dermatitis (SeBD) and psoriasis (PsO) flares due to masks. Hence, we conducted a multicenter study to clarify the possibility of increased SeBD and PsO flares in association with mask wearing during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: This multicenter study enrolled patients with a diagnosis of facial SeBD and PsO. All dermatological consultations were conducted in teledermatology at baseline (T0) and after 1 month (T1) Of >6 hours/day wearing mask. PsO patients were assessed using PsO Area and Severity Index (PASI) and self-administered PASI (SAPASI), whilst SeBD patients with symptom scale of seborrheic dermatitis' (SSSD) and seborrheic dermatitis area and severity index (SEDASI). RESULTS: A total of 33 (20 males, 13 females, average age 43.61±9.86) patients with PsO and 33 (20 males, 13 females, average age 44.00±8.58) with SeBD were enrolled. After 1 month, PsO patients displayed higher values of both PASI and SAPASI (P<0.0001), while SeBD patients experienced a flare, as testified by the increment of both SSSD and SEDASI (P<0.0001). Mask type did not seem to influence the flare severity. CONCLUSIONS: Masks remain an optimal preventive strategy during COVID-19 pandemic, but patients with PsO and SeBD may experience facial flares. Thus, therapeutic approach should be more aggressive in these groups of patients to counteract the triggering effect of masks.

Masks use and facial dermatitis during COVID-19 outbreak: is there a difference between CE and non-CE approved masks? Multi-center, real-life data from a large Italian cohort.

BACKGROUND: During the recent COVID-19 outbreak, masks became mandatory and shortages frequent, therefore the prevalence of non-CE (European Conformity Mark) approved masks increased in the general population. We aimed to quantify the prevalence of mask-related cutaneous side effects and the differences between CE and non-CE approved masks. METHODS: In this multicenter prospective observational study conducted from March 20, 2020 to May 12, 2020(during and after quarantine), patients attending emergency departments for a dermatological consult were clinically assessed and their masks were inspected to detect CE marks and UNI (Italian National Unification Entity) norms. Patients with history of facial dermatoses or under current treatment for facial dermatoses were excluded. RESULTS: We enrolled 412 patients (318 during quarantine and 94 after quarantine). CE-approved masks were observed 52.8% vs. 24.5%, whilst subsets of non-CE approved masks were 9.7% vs. 14.9% (Personal protective equipment (PPE)-masks), 16.4% vs. 12.8% (surgical masks [SM]), and 21.1% vs. 47.9%(non-PPE) and (non-SM masks), respectively during and after quarantine. Remarkably, non-CE-approved masks resulted in patients displaying a statistically significant higher incidence of facial dermatoses and irritant contact dermatitis compared to CE-approved masks, and these differences were mainly driven by non-PPE non-SM masks. Comparing quarantine and after quarantine periods, no statistically significant differences were found for CE-approved masks, whilst differences were detected in non-CE-approved masks regarding incidence of facial dermatoses (P<0.0001)and irritant contact dermatitis (P=0.0041). CONCLUSIONS: Masks are essential to prevent COVID-19 but at the same time higher awareness regarding mask specifications should be promoted in the general population. Non-PPE and non-SM masks should undergo more rigorous testing to prevent the occurrence of cutaneous side effects and future patients' lawsuit damages.

COVID-19 related masks increase severity of both acne (maskne) and rosacea (mask rosacea): Multi-center, real-life, telemedical, and observational prospective study.

Masks are essential for COVID-19 prevention, but recently they were suggested to modify cutaneous facial microenvironment and trigger facial dermatoses. To evaluate mask-related rosacea and acne (maskne) in untreated patients during lockdown. In this multi-center, real-life, observational prospective study, we enrolled stable, untreated acne and rosacea patients that wore masks during lockdown at least 6 h/day. They underwent two teledermatological consultations, at the baseline and after 6 weeks. Clinical, pharmacological, and psychological data were recorded. A total 66 patients, 30 (median age: 34.0 [30.25-29.75] yoa) with acne and 36 patients (median age: 48 [43-54] years) with rosacea, were enrolled in this study. After 6 weeks of mask and quarantine, patients with acne displayed an increased Global Acne Grading Scale (GAGS) score in mask-related areas (P < .0001). Likewise, after 6 weeks of mask and quarantine, patients with rosacea displayed a worsen in both physican (P < .0001) and patient (P < .0001) reported outcomes. Remarkably, patients reported also a statistically significant decrease in their quality of life (P < .0001). Masks appear to trigger both acne and rosacea flares. Additional studies are needed to generate evidence and inform clinical decision-making.