Viral contamination on the surfaces of the personal protective equipment among health care professionals working in COVID-19 wards: A single-center prospective, observational study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate potential viral contamination on the surfaces of personal protective equipment (PPE) in COVID-19 wards. METHODS: Face shields, gloves, the chest area of PPE and shoe soles were sampled at different time points. The samples were tested for the presence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) by PCR, and the cycle threshold (CT) values were recorded. RESULTS: The positive rate was 74.7% (239/320) for all PPE specimens. The CT values of the samples were ranked in the following order: face shields > chests > gloves > shoe soles (37.08±1.38, 35.48±2.02, 34.17±1.91 and 33.52±3.16, respectively; P for trend < .001). After disinfection, the CT values of shoe soles decreased compared with before disinfection (32.78±3.47 vs. 34.3±2.61, P = .037), whereas no significant effect of disinfection on the CT values of face shields, chests and gloves was observed. After disinfection, the CT values of specimens collected from shoe soles gradually increased; before disinfection, the CT values of shoe sole specimens were all less than 35. CONCLUSIONS: SARS-CoV-2 can attach to the surfaces of the PPE of healthcare professionals in COVID-19 wards, especially the shoe soles and undisinfected gloves. Shoe soles had the highest SARS-CoV-2 loads among all tested PPE items.

Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of artemether emulsion on localized senile pruritus: A randomized pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Localized senile pruritus is a continued health problem for the elderly. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of artemether emulsion on localized senile pruritus. METHODS: Sixty patients diagnosed with senile pruritus were randomized into the artemether emulsion (1%) group or emulsion base group in a 1:1 ratio (the artemether group vs the control group). The patients used artemether emulsion or emulsion base for pruritus twice daily for 2 weeks. The pruritus visual analog scale (VAS) and the rate of adverse events were evaluated in week 0 and week 2. RESULTS: The VAS scores in week 2 after treatment decreased significantly compared with those before treatment in both groups (P < .05). After treatment, patients receiving the artemether emulsion had significantly lower mean VAS scores compared to those who received the emulsion base (1.21 ±â€…1.64 vs 3.67 ±â€…2.97, P < .05). When the VAS scores were compared between the 2 groups before treatment, the effective rate of the artemether group was significantly higher than that of the control group (χ2 = 55, P < .05) in week 2 after treatment. Besides, no adverse events occurred in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Both artemether emulsion and emulsion base were effective in treating localized senile pruritus, and artemether emulsion was superior to emulsion base.

Low-dose intralesional injection of 5-fluorouracil and triamcinolone reduces tissue resident memory T cells in chronic eczema.

BACKGROUND: Tissue resident memory T (TRM) cells have been reported to play a significant role in the pathogenesis and relapse of chronic eczema. AIM: To compare the efficacy and safety of the intralesional injection of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and triamcinolone (TA) with those associated with TA alone for the treatment of chronic eczema. METHODS: A total of 168 patients were randomized to 5-FU+TA or TA groups and received a one-time intralesional injection of 5-FU+TA or TA only. Biopsies were collected before and 2 wk after treatment for evaluation of histopathological changes. All patients were followed up monthly for up to 1 year. RESULTS: No serious adverse event was observed in either group. Although the mean atopic dermatitis severity index scores and effective rates were comparable between the two groups after 2 wk of treatment, the relapse rate was significantly lower in the 5-FU+TA group than in the TA group. Histological examination showed significantly fewer CD8+ and CD103+ T cells but not CD4+ T cells in the 5-FU+TA group. CONCLUSION: One-time intralesional injection of 5-FU+TA is effective and safe for chronic eczema treatment and can further reduce the retention of TRM cells in the lesional skin and the relapse rate of chronic eczema.

Efficacy and safety of artemether emulsion for the treatment of mild-to-moderate acne vulgaris: a randomized pilot study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of artemether emulsion treating patients with mild-to-moderate acne vulgaris. METHODS: A total of 73 (randomized 1:1) patients were externally administered either artemether emulsion (1%) or fusidic acid emulsion (5g: 0.1g) twice daily for 12 weeks. Efficacy and safety evaluations were performed at weeks 0 and 12 by Global acne Grading System (GAGS), the number of acne and papule, as well as the rate of clinical respond. RESULTS: After 12 weeks, patients randomized to the artemether emulsion group received artemether emulsion had significantly lower GAGS scores (5.08 ± 1.99 versus 13.75 ± 4.87, p < .001) compared to patients who received fusidic acid emulsion. Patients in the artemether emulsion group had comparable baseline acne scores (11.11 ± 3.73 versus 10.75 ± 4.66, p = .626) and papule score (16.11 ± 5.58 versus 17.03 ± 6.34, p = .356), but significantly lower acne score (3.00 ± 1.55 versus 9.08 ± 4.90, p < .001) and comparable papule score (2.81 ± 1.61 versus 12.69 ± 5.45, p < .001) compared to the fusidic acid emulsion group at 12 weeks. No major adverse events were noted in either treatment group through 12 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Artemether emulsion had better effect in improving mild-to-moderate AV compared to fusidic acid emulsion with barely AEs.

Evaluation of the efficacy and tolerance of artemether emulsion for the treatment of papulopustular rosacea: a randomized pilot study.

Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of artemether emulsion in patients with papulopustular rosacea. Methods: A total of 130 (randomized 1:1) were externally administered either artemether emulsion (1%) or metronidazole emulsion (3%) twice daily for 4 weeks with an open-label 8-week follow-up. The primary endpoints included the proportion of patients who achieved clinical effective responses, as well as erythema and papule and pustule score at week 4. Results: Numerically more patients achieved an effective response at week 4 with artemether emulsion (87.1%) than metronidazole emulsion (80.0%) (p > .05). Patients with artemether emulsion had comparable baseline erythema score (2.45 ± 0.67 versus 2.42 ± 0.70, p = .809) and papule and pustule score (2.11 ± 0.96 versus 2.32 ± 0.83, p = .264), but significantly lower papule and pustule score (0.21 ± 0.52 versus 0.42 ± 0.83, p = .001) and comparable erythema score (0.53 ± 0.88 versus 0.62 ± 0.88, p = .999) compared to patients with metronidazole emulsion at week 4. There was a significantly higher proportion of patients with metronidazole emulsion relapse compared to metronidazole emulsion during the open-label 8-week follow-up period (21.6% versus 2.4%, p < .01). Conclusions: Artemether emulsion improved papulopustular rosacea in the metronidazole emulsion group as early as 4 weeks, but its beneficial effect was maintained through the 8-week follow-up period compared to metronidazole emulsion.