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.

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.

Secukinumab Loss of Efficacy Is Perfectly Counteracted by the Introduction of Combination Therapy (Rescue Therapy): Data from a Multicenter Real-Life Study in a Cohort of Italian Psoriatic Patients That Avoided Secukinumab Switching.

Since psoriasis (PsO) is a chronic inflammatory disease, patients may experience a drug failure also with very effective drugs (i.e., secukinumab) and, consequently, dermatologists have two therapeutic options: switching or perform a combination therapy (rescue therapy) to save the drug that had decreased its efficacy. At the moment no studies focused on combination/rescue therapy of secukinumab, so we performed a 52-weeks multicenter retrospective observational study that involved 40 subjects with plaque psoriasis that experienced a secondary failure and were treated with combination therapy (ciclosporin (n = 11), MTX (n = 15), NB-UVB (n = 7) and apremilast (n = 7)). After 16 weeks of rescue/combination therapy, PASI and a DLQI varied respectively from 8 [7.0-9.0] and 13 [12.0-15.0], to 3 [2.8-4.0] and 3 [2.0-3.3]), suggesting a significant improvement of daily functionality and quality of life. Results were maintained at 52 weeks. No side effects were experienced during the study. Secukinumab remains a safety and effective drug for PsO patients also in the IL-23 and JAK inhibitors era. The rescue therapy is a valid therapeutic option in case of secukinumab secondary failure.

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.

SARS-CoV-2 Infection Induces Psoriatic Arthritis Flares and Enthesis Resident Plasmacytoid Dendritic Cell Type-1 Interferon Inhibition by JAK Antagonism Offer Novel Spondyloarthritis Pathogenesis Insights.

Objective: Bacterial and viral infectious triggers are linked to spondyloarthritis (SpA) including psoriatic arthritis (PsA) development, likely via dendritic cell activation. We investigated spinal entheseal plasmacytoid dendritic cells (pDCs) toll-like receptor (TLR)-7 and 9 activation and therapeutic modulation, including JAK inhibition. We also investigated if COVID-19 infection, a potent TLR-7 stimulator triggered PsA flares. Methods: Normal entheseal pDCs were characterized and stimulated with imiquimod and CpG oligodeoxynucleotides (ODN) to evaluate TNF and IFNα production. NanoString gene expression assay of total pDCs RNA was performed pre- and post- ODN stimulation. Pharmacological inhibition of induced IFNα protein was performed with Tofacitinib and PDE4 inhibition. The impact of SARS-CoV2 viral infection on PsA flares was evaluated. Results: CD45+HLA-DR+CD123+CD303+CD11c- entheseal pDCs were more numerous than blood pDCs (1.9 ± 0.8% vs 0.2 ± 0.07% of CD45+ cells, p=0.008) and showed inducible IFNα and TNF protein following ODN/imiquimod stimulation and were the sole entheseal IFNα producers. NanoString data identified 11 significantly upregulated differentially expressed genes (DEGs) including TNF in stimulated pDCs. Canonical pathway analysis revealed activation of dendritic cell maturation, NF-κB signaling, toll-like receptor signaling and JAK/STAT signaling pathways following ODN stimulation. Both tofacitinib and PDE4i strongly attenuated ODN induced IFNα. DAPSA scores elevations occurred in 18 PsA cases with SARS-CoV2 infection (9.7 ± 4 pre-infection and 35.3 ± 7.5 during infection). Conclusion: Entheseal pDCs link microbes to TNF/IFNα production. SARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with PsA Flares and JAK inhibition suppressed activated entheseal plasmacytoid dendritic Type-1 interferon responses as pointers towards a novel mechanism of PsA and SpA-related arthropathy.

Incidence rates of hospitalization and death from COVID-19 in patients with psoriasis receiving biological treatment: A Northern Italy experience.

INTRODUCTION: Whether biologic therapies enhance the risk of coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) or affect the disease outcome in patients with chronic plaque psoriasis remains to be ascertained. OBJECTIVE: We sought to investigate the incidence of hospitalization and death for COVID-19 in a large sample of patients with plaque psoriasis receiving biologic therapies compared with the general population. METHODS: This is a retrospective multicenter cohort study including patients with chronic plaque psoriasis (n = 6501) being treated with biologic therapy and regularly followed up at the divisions of dermatology of several main hospitals in the Northern Italian cities of Verona, Padua, Vicenza, Modena, Bologna, Piacenza, Turin, and Milan. Incidence rates of hospitalization and death per 10,000 person-months with exact mid-p 95% CIs and standardized incidence ratios were estimated in the patients with psoriasis and compared with those in the general population in the same geographic areas. RESULTS: The incidence rate of hospitalization for COVID-19 was 11.7 (95% CI, 7.2-18.1) per 10,000 person-months in patients with psoriasis and 14.4 (95% CI, 14.3-14.5) in the general population; the incidence rate of death from COVID-19 was 1.3 (95% CI, 0.2-4.3) and 4.7 (95% CI, 4.6-4.7) in patients with psoriasis and the general population, respectively. The standardized incidence ratio of hospitalization and death in patients with psoriasis compared with those in the general population was 0.94 (95% CI, 0.57-1.45; P = .82) and 0.42 (95% CI, 0.07-1.38; P = .19), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our data did not show any adverse impact of biologics on COVID-19 outcome in patients with psoriasis. We would not advise biologic discontinuation in patients on treatment since more than 6 months and not infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 to prevent hospitalization and death from COVID-19.

Biologics increase the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and hospitalization, but not ICU admission and death: Real-life data from a large cohort during red-zone declaration.

During COVID-19 outbreak there are discordant opinions toward the impact of biologics in psoriatic (PsO) patients. Thus we performed a single-center case-control study in Lombardia, the Italian region with the higher number of COVID-19 confirmed cases. We enrolled 1193 PsO patients treated with biologics and small molecules and we used the entire Lombardia population as controls. Notably, 17 PsO patients COVID-19 confirmed were quarantined at home and five hospitalized, no PsO patients were admitted to intensive care unit (ICU) or died. With respect to the general population of Lombardy, patients on biologics were at higher risk to test positive for COVID-19 (odds ratio [OR] 3.43 [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.25-5.73], P < .0001), to be self-quarantined at home (OR 9.05 [95% CI 5.61-14.61], P < .0001) and hospitalized (OR 3.59 [95% CI 1.49-8.63], P = .0044), however, not increased risk of ICU admission or death were found. PsO patients on biologics should be carefully monitored with telemedicine during COVID-19 outbreak and early treated at home to limit hospital overwhelm.