Eosinophilic pustular folliculitis developing at the site of COVID-19 vaccination.

We present a rare case of eosinophilic pustular folliculitis due to mRNA-based vaccines for COVID-19. Histology of the biopsy specimen was very interesting.

Efficacy and Safety of Baricitinib Combined With Topical Corticosteroids for Treatment of Moderate to Severe Atopic Dermatitis: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Baricitinib, an oral selective Janus kinase 1 and 2 inhibitor, effectively reduced disease severity in moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) in 2 phase 3 monotherapy studies. Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of 4 mg and 2 mg of baricitinib in combination with background topical corticosteroid (TCS) therapy in adults with moderate to severe AD who previously had an inadequate response to TCS therapy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 randomized clinical trial, BREEZE-AD7 (Study of Baricitinib [LY3009104] in Combination With Topical Corticosteroids in Adults With Moderate to Severe Atopic Dermatitis) was conducted from November 16, 2018, to August 22, 2019, at 68 centers across 10 countries in Asia, Australia, Europe, and South America. Patients 18 years or older with moderate to severe AD and an inadequate response to TCSs were included. After completing the study, patients were followed up for up to 4 weeks or enrolled in a long-term extension study. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive 2 mg of baricitinib once daily (n = 109), 4 mg of baricitinib once daily (n = 111), or placebo (n = 109) for 16 weeks. The use of low-to-moderate potency TCSs was allowed. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was the proportion of patients achieving a validated Investigator Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis (vIGA-AD) score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear), with a 2-point or greater improvement from baseline at week 16. Results: Among 329 patients (mean [SD] age, 33.8 [12.4] years; 216 [66%] male), at week 16, a vIGA-AD score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear) was achieved by 34 patients (31%) receiving 4 mg of baricitinib and 26 (24%) receiving 2 mg of baricitinib compared with 16 (15%) receiving placebo (odds ratio vs placebo, 2.8 [95% CI, 1.4-5.6]; P = .004 for the 4-mg group; 1.9 [95% CI, 0.9-3.9]; P = .08 for the 2-mg group). Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 64 of 111 patients (58%) in the 4-mg group, 61 of 109 patients (56%) in the 2-mg group, and 41 of 108 patients (38%) in the placebo group. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 patients (4%) in the 4-mg group, 2 (2%) in the 2-mg group, and 4 (4%) in the placebo group. The most common adverse events were nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infections, and folliculitis. Conclusions and Relevance: A dose of 4 mg of baricitinib in combination with background TCS therapy significantly improved the signs and symptoms of moderate to severe AD, with a safety profile consistent with previous studies of baricitinib in AD. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03733301.

Eosinophilic folliculitis due to wearing protective gear in citizens volunteering for sanitation services during the COVID-19 pandemic - an original epidemiological, clinical, dermoscopic, and laboratory-based study.

BACKGROUND: An association between wearing protective gear and eosinophilic folliculitis has not been reported. We aimed to investigate such during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: In three outpatient clinics, we hand-reviewed records of all patients having consulted us during a Study Period (90 days) in the early phase of the pandemic. Our inclusion criteria for Study Subjects were: (i) clear clinical diagnosis, (ii) dermoscopic confirmation, (iii) differential diagnoses excluded, (iv) eosinophilia, (v) protective gear worn during sanitation services, (vi) temporal correlation, (vii) distributional correlation, (viii) physician-assessed association, and (ix) patient-assessed association. Control Periods in the same season were elected. RESULTS: Twenty-five study subjects fulfilled all inclusion criteria. The incidence was significantly higher than in the control periods (IR: 3.57, 95% CI: 1.79-7.43). Male predominance was significant (P < 0.001). Such for patients in the control periods were insignificant. Study subjects were 21.2 (95% CI: 11.0-31.4) years younger than patients in the control periods. For the study subjects, the distribution of erythematous or skin-colored folliculocentric dome-shaped papules and pustules were all compatible with body parts covered by the gear. Lesional biopsy performed on two patients revealed eosinophilic dermal infiltrates within and around the pilosebaceous units. Polarized dermoscopy revealed folliculitis with peri-/interfollicular vascular proliferation. Lesion onsets were 6.4 (SD: 2.1) days after wearing gear. Remissions were 16.7 (SD: 7.5) days after ceasing to wear gear and treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Wearing protective gear in volunteered sanitizing works could be associated with eosinophilic folliculitis. Owing to the significant temporal and distributional correlations, the association might be causal.

Annoying Skin Reaction Among The Medical Staff Using Personal Protective Equipment During COVID-19 (preprint)

Backgrounds: the medical staff remains liable to COVID-19. Healthcare institutions must give offer to the supply of "personal protective equipment" to them, with the prolonged contact with this equipment that may cause a variety of skin diseases.Purpose: To shed light on the cutaneous abnormal reactions to the "personal protective equipment" among the medical staff and offers solutions.Methods: This cross-sectional study conducted for the medical staff that involved doctors, dentists, pharmacists, and nurses in the high-risk Ramadi General Teaching Hospital and low-risk Private Clinics, between 4-10 July 2020, at the time after the rise in COVID-19 patients in Anbar governorate, Iraq. A thorough quantitative descriptive research included age, gender, the duration and type of used masks, gloves, Goggles/face shield, and/or gown. About 23 questions described the adverse skin reactions chiefly that involve the skin. Results: A total of 196 participants were recruited for the online questionnaire, including (49.5%) doctor, (15.3%) dentist, (16.8%) pharmacist, and (18.4%) nurse, with a significant involvement between 20-29 years old age. The use of the mask and glove were associated significantly with an adverse skin reaction, like a wound, dry lips, Acne and/or folliculitis, hand dryness, erythema, itching, wrinkle, nail fracture. While workers who regularly used gowns had a negative correlation with adverse skin reactions including erythema with pruritus of trunk and shoulders, miliaria, and pityriasis versicolor. Goggles/face shield did not report adverse skin problems,Conclusions: The medical staff uses personal protective equipment that may develop mild dermatological adverse effects. It needs early diagnosis and treatment. There is dermatological advice that may be helpful to avoid these unwanted effects.