Key clinical point: Preexisting rheumatoid arthritis (RA) did not increase the risk for mortality or severe immune-related adverse events (AE) in patients initiating immune checkpoint inhibitors for cancer treatment and thus, should not be considered as a contraindication for initiating immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Major finding: Among patients initiating immune checkpoint inhibitors for cancer treatment, those with and without preexisting RA had comparable risks for mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.16; P  =  .30) and severe grade ≥3 immune-related AE (aHR 1.06; P  =  .83).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective, comparative, cohort study including 11,901 patients who initiated immune checkpoint inhibitors for cancer treatment, of which 87 patients with preexisting RA were matched to 203 patients without preexisting autoimmune diseases (comparator group).

Disclosures: This study did not receive any specific funding. Several authors declared being employed and owning stock options or receiving partial salary support, honoraria, consulting fees, research grants, or royalties from different sources.

Source: McCarter KR et al. Mortality and immune-related adverse events after immune checkpoint inhibitor initiation for cancer among patients with pre-existing rheumatoid arthritis: A retrospective, comparative, cohort study. Lancet Rheumatol. 2023 (Mar 27). Doi: 10.1016/S2665-9913(23)00064-4

Key clinical point: Preexisting rheumatoid arthritis (RA) did not increase the risk for mortality or severe immune-related adverse events (AE) in patients initiating immune checkpoint inhibitors for cancer treatment and thus, should not be considered as a contraindication for initiating immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Major finding: Among patients initiating immune checkpoint inhibitors for cancer treatment, those with and without preexisting RA had comparable risks for mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.16; P  =  .30) and severe grade ≥3 immune-related AE (aHR 1.06; P  =  .83).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective, comparative, cohort study including 11,901 patients who initiated immune checkpoint inhibitors for cancer treatment, of which 87 patients with preexisting RA were matched to 203 patients without preexisting autoimmune diseases (comparator group).

Disclosures: This study did not receive any specific funding. Several authors declared being employed and owning stock options or receiving partial salary support, honoraria, consulting fees, research grants, or royalties from different sources.

Source: McCarter KR et al. Mortality and immune-related adverse events after immune checkpoint inhibitor initiation for cancer among patients with pre-existing rheumatoid arthritis: A retrospective, comparative, cohort study. Lancet Rheumatol. 2023 (Mar 27). Doi: 10.1016/S2665-9913(23)00064-4

Key clinical point: Preexisting rheumatoid arthritis (RA) did not increase the risk for mortality or severe immune-related adverse events (AE) in patients initiating immune checkpoint inhibitors for cancer treatment and thus, should not be considered as a contraindication for initiating immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Major finding: Among patients initiating immune checkpoint inhibitors for cancer treatment, those with and without preexisting RA had comparable risks for mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.16; P  =  .30) and severe grade ≥3 immune-related AE (aHR 1.06; P  =  .83).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective, comparative, cohort study including 11,901 patients who initiated immune checkpoint inhibitors for cancer treatment, of which 87 patients with preexisting RA were matched to 203 patients without preexisting autoimmune diseases (comparator group).

Disclosures: This study did not receive any specific funding. Several authors declared being employed and owning stock options or receiving partial salary support, honoraria, consulting fees, research grants, or royalties from different sources.

Source: McCarter KR et al. Mortality and immune-related adverse events after immune checkpoint inhibitor initiation for cancer among patients with pre-existing rheumatoid arthritis: A retrospective, comparative, cohort study. Lancet Rheumatol. 2023 (Mar 27). Doi: 10.1016/S2665-9913(23)00064-4

BOSTON – Noninvasive tests performed in midlife may help identify people who are at risk of late-onset epilepsy, a new study suggests. New data from the Framingham Heart Study show those who scored better on a neurocognitive test that measures executive function were 75% less likely to develop late-onset epilepsy.

An analysis of MRI revealed that those with higher cortical volumes also had a lower risk of epilepsy later in life, while those with higher white matter hyperintensities had an increased risk.

The study could help identify at-risk individuals years before symptoms of epilepsy appear.

“We present possible markers that could potentially identify patients at risk for developing late-onset epilepsy, even in the preclinical phase and before the clinical manifestation of conditions like stroke and dementia that are known now to be linked with the condition,” said lead investigator Maria Stefanidou, MD, assistant professor of neurology at Boston University.

The findings were presented at the 2023 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
 

Protection against late-onset epilepsy?

Hypertension and stroke are known risk factors for late-onset epilepsy. Dementia is also a known risk factor. But in about 30% of cases, the cause of epilepsy in older individuals is unknown.

For this study, investigators analyzed data from the offspring cohort of the Framingham Heart Study. Participants were at least 45 years old; underwent neuropsychological evaluation and brain MRI; and had no prior history of stroke, dementia, or epilepsy. Cognitive measures included Visual Reproductions Delayed Recall, Logical Memory Delayed Recall, Similarities, Trail Making B-A (TrB-TrA), and the Hooper Visual Organization Test.

Participants also underwent an MRI to measure total cerebral brain volume, cortical gray matter volume, white matter hyperintensities, and hippocampal volume.

After a mean follow-up of 13.5 years, late-onset epilepsy was diagnosed in 31 of participants who underwent neuropsychological testing (n = 2,349) and in 27 of those who underwent MRI (n = 2,056).

Better performance on the TrB-TrA test (a measure of executive function, processing speed, and occult vascular injury) was associated with a reduced risk of late-onset epilepsy (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.25; P = .011).

The findings held even after adjusting for age, sex, educational level, and known risk factors for late-onset epilepsy, such as hypertension (aHR, 0.30; P = .0401).

Higher white matter hyperintensities, a measure of occult vascular injury, was associated with increased epilepsy risk (aHR, 1.5; P = .042) when adjusted only for age, sex, and education, but was no longer significant after adjusting for hypertension and other risk factors (aHR, 1.47; P = .065).

The analysis also revealed that participants with a higher cortical gray matter volume had a lower risk for late-onset epilepsy (aHR, 0.73; P = .001).

“There is increasing literature supporting that late-onset epilepsy may be secondary to accumulative occult cerebrovascular and neurodegenerative processes that occur during aging,” Dr. Stefanidou said. “Our findings likely reflect that a lesser degree of occult vascular brain injury in midlife may be protective against late-onset epilepsy.”

However, the epidemiological study points to association, not causation, Dr. Stefanidou cautions.

“Further studies will be needed to study our observations in the clinical setting,” she said.
 

‘Intriguing’ findings

Commenting on the findings, Joseph Sirven, MD, a neurologist at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla., said the findings are “intriguing,” but also raise some questions. “Late-onset epilepsy remains an issue for many and it’s common,” said Dr. Sirven, who has patients with late-onset epilepsy.

Dr. Sirven was particularly interested in the findings on white matter hyperintensities. “Hippocampal volumes have been used but not so much cortical volumes,” he said. “I would like to know more about how white matter changes suggest pathology that would explain epilepsy.”

Study funding was not disclosed. Dr. Stefanidou and Dr. Sirven report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON – Noninvasive tests performed in midlife may help identify people who are at risk of late-onset epilepsy, a new study suggests. New data from the Framingham Heart Study show those who scored better on a neurocognitive test that measures executive function were 75% less likely to develop late-onset epilepsy.

An analysis of MRI revealed that those with higher cortical volumes also had a lower risk of epilepsy later in life, while those with higher white matter hyperintensities had an increased risk.

The study could help identify at-risk individuals years before symptoms of epilepsy appear.

“We present possible markers that could potentially identify patients at risk for developing late-onset epilepsy, even in the preclinical phase and before the clinical manifestation of conditions like stroke and dementia that are known now to be linked with the condition,” said lead investigator Maria Stefanidou, MD, assistant professor of neurology at Boston University.

The findings were presented at the 2023 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
 

Protection against late-onset epilepsy?

Hypertension and stroke are known risk factors for late-onset epilepsy. Dementia is also a known risk factor. But in about 30% of cases, the cause of epilepsy in older individuals is unknown.

For this study, investigators analyzed data from the offspring cohort of the Framingham Heart Study. Participants were at least 45 years old; underwent neuropsychological evaluation and brain MRI; and had no prior history of stroke, dementia, or epilepsy. Cognitive measures included Visual Reproductions Delayed Recall, Logical Memory Delayed Recall, Similarities, Trail Making B-A (TrB-TrA), and the Hooper Visual Organization Test.

Participants also underwent an MRI to measure total cerebral brain volume, cortical gray matter volume, white matter hyperintensities, and hippocampal volume.

After a mean follow-up of 13.5 years, late-onset epilepsy was diagnosed in 31 of participants who underwent neuropsychological testing (n = 2,349) and in 27 of those who underwent MRI (n = 2,056).

Better performance on the TrB-TrA test (a measure of executive function, processing speed, and occult vascular injury) was associated with a reduced risk of late-onset epilepsy (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.25; P = .011).

The findings held even after adjusting for age, sex, educational level, and known risk factors for late-onset epilepsy, such as hypertension (aHR, 0.30; P = .0401).

Higher white matter hyperintensities, a measure of occult vascular injury, was associated with increased epilepsy risk (aHR, 1.5; P = .042) when adjusted only for age, sex, and education, but was no longer significant after adjusting for hypertension and other risk factors (aHR, 1.47; P = .065).

The analysis also revealed that participants with a higher cortical gray matter volume had a lower risk for late-onset epilepsy (aHR, 0.73; P = .001).

“There is increasing literature supporting that late-onset epilepsy may be secondary to accumulative occult cerebrovascular and neurodegenerative processes that occur during aging,” Dr. Stefanidou said. “Our findings likely reflect that a lesser degree of occult vascular brain injury in midlife may be protective against late-onset epilepsy.”

However, the epidemiological study points to association, not causation, Dr. Stefanidou cautions.

“Further studies will be needed to study our observations in the clinical setting,” she said.
 

‘Intriguing’ findings

Commenting on the findings, Joseph Sirven, MD, a neurologist at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla., said the findings are “intriguing,” but also raise some questions. “Late-onset epilepsy remains an issue for many and it’s common,” said Dr. Sirven, who has patients with late-onset epilepsy.

Dr. Sirven was particularly interested in the findings on white matter hyperintensities. “Hippocampal volumes have been used but not so much cortical volumes,” he said. “I would like to know more about how white matter changes suggest pathology that would explain epilepsy.”

Study funding was not disclosed. Dr. Stefanidou and Dr. Sirven report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON – Noninvasive tests performed in midlife may help identify people who are at risk of late-onset epilepsy, a new study suggests. New data from the Framingham Heart Study show those who scored better on a neurocognitive test that measures executive function were 75% less likely to develop late-onset epilepsy.

An analysis of MRI revealed that those with higher cortical volumes also had a lower risk of epilepsy later in life, while those with higher white matter hyperintensities had an increased risk.

The study could help identify at-risk individuals years before symptoms of epilepsy appear.

“We present possible markers that could potentially identify patients at risk for developing late-onset epilepsy, even in the preclinical phase and before the clinical manifestation of conditions like stroke and dementia that are known now to be linked with the condition,” said lead investigator Maria Stefanidou, MD, assistant professor of neurology at Boston University.

The findings were presented at the 2023 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
 

Protection against late-onset epilepsy?

Hypertension and stroke are known risk factors for late-onset epilepsy. Dementia is also a known risk factor. But in about 30% of cases, the cause of epilepsy in older individuals is unknown.

For this study, investigators analyzed data from the offspring cohort of the Framingham Heart Study. Participants were at least 45 years old; underwent neuropsychological evaluation and brain MRI; and had no prior history of stroke, dementia, or epilepsy. Cognitive measures included Visual Reproductions Delayed Recall, Logical Memory Delayed Recall, Similarities, Trail Making B-A (TrB-TrA), and the Hooper Visual Organization Test.

Participants also underwent an MRI to measure total cerebral brain volume, cortical gray matter volume, white matter hyperintensities, and hippocampal volume.

After a mean follow-up of 13.5 years, late-onset epilepsy was diagnosed in 31 of participants who underwent neuropsychological testing (n = 2,349) and in 27 of those who underwent MRI (n = 2,056).

Better performance on the TrB-TrA test (a measure of executive function, processing speed, and occult vascular injury) was associated with a reduced risk of late-onset epilepsy (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.25; P = .011).

The findings held even after adjusting for age, sex, educational level, and known risk factors for late-onset epilepsy, such as hypertension (aHR, 0.30; P = .0401).

Higher white matter hyperintensities, a measure of occult vascular injury, was associated with increased epilepsy risk (aHR, 1.5; P = .042) when adjusted only for age, sex, and education, but was no longer significant after adjusting for hypertension and other risk factors (aHR, 1.47; P = .065).

The analysis also revealed that participants with a higher cortical gray matter volume had a lower risk for late-onset epilepsy (aHR, 0.73; P = .001).

“There is increasing literature supporting that late-onset epilepsy may be secondary to accumulative occult cerebrovascular and neurodegenerative processes that occur during aging,” Dr. Stefanidou said. “Our findings likely reflect that a lesser degree of occult vascular brain injury in midlife may be protective against late-onset epilepsy.”

However, the epidemiological study points to association, not causation, Dr. Stefanidou cautions.

“Further studies will be needed to study our observations in the clinical setting,” she said.
 

‘Intriguing’ findings

Commenting on the findings, Joseph Sirven, MD, a neurologist at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla., said the findings are “intriguing,” but also raise some questions. “Late-onset epilepsy remains an issue for many and it’s common,” said Dr. Sirven, who has patients with late-onset epilepsy.

Dr. Sirven was particularly interested in the findings on white matter hyperintensities. “Hippocampal volumes have been used but not so much cortical volumes,” he said. “I would like to know more about how white matter changes suggest pathology that would explain epilepsy.”

Study funding was not disclosed. Dr. Stefanidou and Dr. Sirven report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON – Becker (BMD) and Duchenne muscle dystrophy (DMD) progress largely from irreversible contraction-induced injury of skeletal muscles, making the very positive interim results of an early-phase trial with a drug that prevents these injuries worth attention.

The phase 1b data in BMD, presented at the 2023 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology, were sufficiently promising that controlled phase 2 trials in both BMD and DMD are already enrolling, reported Joanne Donovan, MD, PhD, an adjunct professor at Boston University and chief medical officer of Edgewise Therapeutics, the company developing the drug.
 

Phase 1 study

Early phase studies are largely focused on safety, but the 6-month interim data of a 12-month study showed rapid reductions in multiple biomarkers of muscle injury, reductions in anti-inflammatory markers, proteomic changes consistent with sustained effects, and a trend for functional improvement in muscle dystrophies.

Moreover, the evidence of a clinical effect was achieved in adult patients with a North Star Ambulatory Assessment (NSAA) score of 15, signifying advanced disease. Only 12 patients were enrolled and there were no controls, but objective evidence of a favorable effect was generated by highly significant reductions in creatine kinase (CK) and fast skeletal muscle (TNNI2) troponin, which are both biomarkers commonly used to track muscular dystrophy progression.

In patients with BMD or DMD, a lack of dystrophin is a key pathogenic feature, according to Dr. Donovan. She explained that dystrophin in muscles connects contractile proteins to membranes and surrounding matrix. In the presence of dystrophin, muscle fibers support each other, but when this protein is absent, contraction causes injury.

The drug in development, currently identified as EDG-5506, is a selective fast myosin inhibitor. This agent was shown to prevent the muscle injury caused by lack of dystrophin in animal models of muscular dystrophy and is now showing the same effect in humans. Preservation of muscle is critical to preventing BMD and DMD progression according to several sets of data, according to Dr. Donovan.

For one, it has been shown that BMD or DMD patients with relatively preserved function as defined by a NSAA score above 32 have minimal muscle damage. As NSAA scores fall below 32 points, muscle mass diminishes and fat accumulates. In natural history studies of BMD, there is a 1.2-point decline in NSAA score over 5 years, and this tracks with muscle loss and not with other variables, such as patient age.

“Progression depends on the degree of muscle loss,” Dr. Donovan stated, providing the rationale for moving forward with EDG-5506.
 

Proof of concept

In experimental studies, modulation of fast myelin provided complete protection against muscle injury while preserving its contractile function, and this translated into protection against loss of function. Phase 1 studies in BMD patients and healthy controls have already provided evidence that EDG-5506 is well tolerated and safe, but the new phase 1b provides a proof of concept for its ability to inhibit muscle injury in BMD patients.

In this study, called ARCH, 12 adults 18 years of age or older with a dystrophin mutation and a BMD phenotype who could complete a 100-meter timed test were enrolled. The median age at entry was 32 years. Several patients had participated in a previous phase 1 safety study. The daily starting dose of 10 mg was increased from 10 mg to 15 mg at 2 months. The dose was increased again to 20 mg at 6 months, but the data presented by Dr. Donovan were restricted to the first 6 months.

At the interim 6-month analysis, creatine kinase was reduced by 40% and TINN2 was reduced by 84% (both P < 0.001). The significant reductions in these biomarkers and others, such as myoglobin, were mostly achieved within the first month, although further reductions were observed for some biomarkers subsequently.

The NSAA score at 6 months improved on average by about 1 point on treatment. Natural history studies of BMD predict a 1-point reduction in NSAA score over this period of time. The modest improvements from baseline in pain scores at 1 month were sustained at 6 months.

On the basis of a proteomic analysis, 125 proteins mostly associated with metabolic pathways consistent with muscle injury were found to be altered in BMD patients relative to healthy controls. The majority of these proteins, whether assessed collectively or individually, normalized after 1 to 2 months of treatment with EDG-5506 and have remained stable during follow-up to date, according to Dr. Donovan.

As in previous studies, the drug was well tolerated. The three most common treatment-emergent events were dizziness, somnolence, and headache. Each was reported by about 25% of patients, but no patient discontinued therapy as a result of adverse events.
 

Findings deemed ‘a big deal’

These data, despite the small number of patients in the study and the limited follow-up, “are a big deal,” according to Nicholas E. Johnson, MD, division chief, neuromuscular disorders, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond. He pointed out that there are no effective treatments currently for BMD, and the mechanism of action is plausible.

“I am excited about the potential of this treatment, although we clearly need longer follow-up and more patients evaluated on this treatment,” Dr. Johnson said. He said that clinicians with BMD patients should be aware of the phase 2 trial that is now recruiting adult subjects.

“Becker muscular dystrophy is highly disabling. As disease advances, most patients have very limited function,” said Dr. Johnson, emphasizing the urgent unmet need for an effective therapy.

Dr. Donovan is a full time employee of Edgewise Therapeutics, which funded this study. Dr. Johnson has financial relationships with Acceleron, Arthex, AveXis, Avidity, Biogen, Dyne Therapeutics, Entrada, Juvena, ML Bio, Sarepta Therapeutics, Triplet Therapeutics, and Vertex Pharma.
 

BOSTON – Becker (BMD) and Duchenne muscle dystrophy (DMD) progress largely from irreversible contraction-induced injury of skeletal muscles, making the very positive interim results of an early-phase trial with a drug that prevents these injuries worth attention.

The phase 1b data in BMD, presented at the 2023 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology, were sufficiently promising that controlled phase 2 trials in both BMD and DMD are already enrolling, reported Joanne Donovan, MD, PhD, an adjunct professor at Boston University and chief medical officer of Edgewise Therapeutics, the company developing the drug.
 

Phase 1 study

Early phase studies are largely focused on safety, but the 6-month interim data of a 12-month study showed rapid reductions in multiple biomarkers of muscle injury, reductions in anti-inflammatory markers, proteomic changes consistent with sustained effects, and a trend for functional improvement in muscle dystrophies.

Moreover, the evidence of a clinical effect was achieved in adult patients with a North Star Ambulatory Assessment (NSAA) score of 15, signifying advanced disease. Only 12 patients were enrolled and there were no controls, but objective evidence of a favorable effect was generated by highly significant reductions in creatine kinase (CK) and fast skeletal muscle (TNNI2) troponin, which are both biomarkers commonly used to track muscular dystrophy progression.

In patients with BMD or DMD, a lack of dystrophin is a key pathogenic feature, according to Dr. Donovan. She explained that dystrophin in muscles connects contractile proteins to membranes and surrounding matrix. In the presence of dystrophin, muscle fibers support each other, but when this protein is absent, contraction causes injury.

The drug in development, currently identified as EDG-5506, is a selective fast myosin inhibitor. This agent was shown to prevent the muscle injury caused by lack of dystrophin in animal models of muscular dystrophy and is now showing the same effect in humans. Preservation of muscle is critical to preventing BMD and DMD progression according to several sets of data, according to Dr. Donovan.

For one, it has been shown that BMD or DMD patients with relatively preserved function as defined by a NSAA score above 32 have minimal muscle damage. As NSAA scores fall below 32 points, muscle mass diminishes and fat accumulates. In natural history studies of BMD, there is a 1.2-point decline in NSAA score over 5 years, and this tracks with muscle loss and not with other variables, such as patient age.

“Progression depends on the degree of muscle loss,” Dr. Donovan stated, providing the rationale for moving forward with EDG-5506.
 

Proof of concept

In experimental studies, modulation of fast myelin provided complete protection against muscle injury while preserving its contractile function, and this translated into protection against loss of function. Phase 1 studies in BMD patients and healthy controls have already provided evidence that EDG-5506 is well tolerated and safe, but the new phase 1b provides a proof of concept for its ability to inhibit muscle injury in BMD patients.

In this study, called ARCH, 12 adults 18 years of age or older with a dystrophin mutation and a BMD phenotype who could complete a 100-meter timed test were enrolled. The median age at entry was 32 years. Several patients had participated in a previous phase 1 safety study. The daily starting dose of 10 mg was increased from 10 mg to 15 mg at 2 months. The dose was increased again to 20 mg at 6 months, but the data presented by Dr. Donovan were restricted to the first 6 months.

At the interim 6-month analysis, creatine kinase was reduced by 40% and TINN2 was reduced by 84% (both P < 0.001). The significant reductions in these biomarkers and others, such as myoglobin, were mostly achieved within the first month, although further reductions were observed for some biomarkers subsequently.

The NSAA score at 6 months improved on average by about 1 point on treatment. Natural history studies of BMD predict a 1-point reduction in NSAA score over this period of time. The modest improvements from baseline in pain scores at 1 month were sustained at 6 months.

On the basis of a proteomic analysis, 125 proteins mostly associated with metabolic pathways consistent with muscle injury were found to be altered in BMD patients relative to healthy controls. The majority of these proteins, whether assessed collectively or individually, normalized after 1 to 2 months of treatment with EDG-5506 and have remained stable during follow-up to date, according to Dr. Donovan.

As in previous studies, the drug was well tolerated. The three most common treatment-emergent events were dizziness, somnolence, and headache. Each was reported by about 25% of patients, but no patient discontinued therapy as a result of adverse events.
 

Findings deemed ‘a big deal’

These data, despite the small number of patients in the study and the limited follow-up, “are a big deal,” according to Nicholas E. Johnson, MD, division chief, neuromuscular disorders, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond. He pointed out that there are no effective treatments currently for BMD, and the mechanism of action is plausible.

“I am excited about the potential of this treatment, although we clearly need longer follow-up and more patients evaluated on this treatment,” Dr. Johnson said. He said that clinicians with BMD patients should be aware of the phase 2 trial that is now recruiting adult subjects.

“Becker muscular dystrophy is highly disabling. As disease advances, most patients have very limited function,” said Dr. Johnson, emphasizing the urgent unmet need for an effective therapy.

Dr. Donovan is a full time employee of Edgewise Therapeutics, which funded this study. Dr. Johnson has financial relationships with Acceleron, Arthex, AveXis, Avidity, Biogen, Dyne Therapeutics, Entrada, Juvena, ML Bio, Sarepta Therapeutics, Triplet Therapeutics, and Vertex Pharma.
 

BOSTON – Becker (BMD) and Duchenne muscle dystrophy (DMD) progress largely from irreversible contraction-induced injury of skeletal muscles, making the very positive interim results of an early-phase trial with a drug that prevents these injuries worth attention.

The phase 1b data in BMD, presented at the 2023 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology, were sufficiently promising that controlled phase 2 trials in both BMD and DMD are already enrolling, reported Joanne Donovan, MD, PhD, an adjunct professor at Boston University and chief medical officer of Edgewise Therapeutics, the company developing the drug.
 

Phase 1 study

Early phase studies are largely focused on safety, but the 6-month interim data of a 12-month study showed rapid reductions in multiple biomarkers of muscle injury, reductions in anti-inflammatory markers, proteomic changes consistent with sustained effects, and a trend for functional improvement in muscle dystrophies.

Moreover, the evidence of a clinical effect was achieved in adult patients with a North Star Ambulatory Assessment (NSAA) score of 15, signifying advanced disease. Only 12 patients were enrolled and there were no controls, but objective evidence of a favorable effect was generated by highly significant reductions in creatine kinase (CK) and fast skeletal muscle (TNNI2) troponin, which are both biomarkers commonly used to track muscular dystrophy progression.

In patients with BMD or DMD, a lack of dystrophin is a key pathogenic feature, according to Dr. Donovan. She explained that dystrophin in muscles connects contractile proteins to membranes and surrounding matrix. In the presence of dystrophin, muscle fibers support each other, but when this protein is absent, contraction causes injury.

The drug in development, currently identified as EDG-5506, is a selective fast myosin inhibitor. This agent was shown to prevent the muscle injury caused by lack of dystrophin in animal models of muscular dystrophy and is now showing the same effect in humans. Preservation of muscle is critical to preventing BMD and DMD progression according to several sets of data, according to Dr. Donovan.

For one, it has been shown that BMD or DMD patients with relatively preserved function as defined by a NSAA score above 32 have minimal muscle damage. As NSAA scores fall below 32 points, muscle mass diminishes and fat accumulates. In natural history studies of BMD, there is a 1.2-point decline in NSAA score over 5 years, and this tracks with muscle loss and not with other variables, such as patient age.

“Progression depends on the degree of muscle loss,” Dr. Donovan stated, providing the rationale for moving forward with EDG-5506.
 

Proof of concept

In experimental studies, modulation of fast myelin provided complete protection against muscle injury while preserving its contractile function, and this translated into protection against loss of function. Phase 1 studies in BMD patients and healthy controls have already provided evidence that EDG-5506 is well tolerated and safe, but the new phase 1b provides a proof of concept for its ability to inhibit muscle injury in BMD patients.

In this study, called ARCH, 12 adults 18 years of age or older with a dystrophin mutation and a BMD phenotype who could complete a 100-meter timed test were enrolled. The median age at entry was 32 years. Several patients had participated in a previous phase 1 safety study. The daily starting dose of 10 mg was increased from 10 mg to 15 mg at 2 months. The dose was increased again to 20 mg at 6 months, but the data presented by Dr. Donovan were restricted to the first 6 months.

At the interim 6-month analysis, creatine kinase was reduced by 40% and TINN2 was reduced by 84% (both P < 0.001). The significant reductions in these biomarkers and others, such as myoglobin, were mostly achieved within the first month, although further reductions were observed for some biomarkers subsequently.

The NSAA score at 6 months improved on average by about 1 point on treatment. Natural history studies of BMD predict a 1-point reduction in NSAA score over this period of time. The modest improvements from baseline in pain scores at 1 month were sustained at 6 months.

On the basis of a proteomic analysis, 125 proteins mostly associated with metabolic pathways consistent with muscle injury were found to be altered in BMD patients relative to healthy controls. The majority of these proteins, whether assessed collectively or individually, normalized after 1 to 2 months of treatment with EDG-5506 and have remained stable during follow-up to date, according to Dr. Donovan.

As in previous studies, the drug was well tolerated. The three most common treatment-emergent events were dizziness, somnolence, and headache. Each was reported by about 25% of patients, but no patient discontinued therapy as a result of adverse events.
 

Findings deemed ‘a big deal’

These data, despite the small number of patients in the study and the limited follow-up, “are a big deal,” according to Nicholas E. Johnson, MD, division chief, neuromuscular disorders, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond. He pointed out that there are no effective treatments currently for BMD, and the mechanism of action is plausible.

“I am excited about the potential of this treatment, although we clearly need longer follow-up and more patients evaluated on this treatment,” Dr. Johnson said. He said that clinicians with BMD patients should be aware of the phase 2 trial that is now recruiting adult subjects.

“Becker muscular dystrophy is highly disabling. As disease advances, most patients have very limited function,” said Dr. Johnson, emphasizing the urgent unmet need for an effective therapy.

Dr. Donovan is a full time employee of Edgewise Therapeutics, which funded this study. Dr. Johnson has financial relationships with Acceleron, Arthex, AveXis, Avidity, Biogen, Dyne Therapeutics, Entrada, Juvena, ML Bio, Sarepta Therapeutics, Triplet Therapeutics, and Vertex Pharma.
 

Taking a swing against arthritis

Osteoarthritis is a tough disease to manage. Exercise helps ease the stiffness and pain of the joints, but at the same time, the disease makes it difficult to do that beneficial exercise. Even a relatively simple activity like jogging can hurt more than it helps. If only there were a low-impact exercise that was incredibly popular among the generally older population who are likely to have arthritis.

We love a good golf study here at LOTME, and a group of Australian and U.K. researchers have provided. Osteoarthritis affects 2 million people in the land down under, making it the most common source of disability there. In that population, only 64% reported their physical health to be good, very good, or excellent. Among the 459 golfers with OA that the study authors surveyed, however, the percentage reporting good health rose to more than 90%.

jacoblund/Getty Images

A similar story emerged when they looked at mental health. Nearly a quarter of nongolfers with OA reported high or very high levels of psychological distress, compared with just 8% of golfers. This pattern of improved physical and mental health remained when the researchers looked at the general, non-OA population.

This isn’t the first time golf’s been connected with improved health, and previous studies have shown golf to reduce the risks of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and obesity, among other things. Just walking one 18-hole round significantly exceeds the CDC’s recommended 150 minutes of physical activity per week. Go out multiple times a week – leaving the cart and beer at home, American golfers – and you’ll be fit for a lifetime.

The golfers on our staff, however, are still waiting for those mental health benefits to kick in. Because when we’re adding up our scorecard after that string of four double bogeys to end the round, we’re most definitely thinking: “Yes, this sport is reducing my psychological distress. I am having fun right now.”
 

Battle of the sexes’ intestines

There are, we’re sure you’ve noticed, some differences between males and females. Females, for one thing, have longer small intestines than males. Everybody knows that, right? You didn’t know? Really? … Really?

Afif Ramdhasuma/Unsplash

Well, then, we’re guessing you haven’t read “Hidden diversity: Comparative functional morphology of humans and other species” by Erin A. McKenney, PhD, of North Carolina State University, Raleigh, and associates, which just appeared in PeerJ. We couldn’t put it down, even in the shower – a real page-turner/scroller. (It’s a great way to clean a phone, for those who also like to scroll, text, or talk on the toilet.)

The researchers got out their rulers, calipers, and string and took many measurements of the digestive systems of 45 human cadavers (21 female and 24 male), which were compared with data from 10 rats, 10 pigs, and 10 bullfrogs, which had been collected (the measurements, not the animals) by undergraduate students enrolled in a comparative anatomy laboratory course at the university.

There was little intestinal-length variation among the four-legged subjects, but when it comes to humans, females have “consistently and significantly longer small intestines than males,” the investigators noted.

The women’s small intestines, almost 14 feet long on average, were about a foot longer than the men’s, which suggests that women are better able to extract nutrients from food and “supports the canalization hypothesis, which posits that women are better able to survive during periods of stress,” coauthor Amanda Hale said in a written statement from the school. The way to a man’s heart may be through his stomach, but the way to a woman’s heart is through her duodenum, it seems.

Fascinating stuff, to be sure, but the thing that really caught our eye in the PeerJ article was the authors’ suggestion “that organs behave independently of one another, both within and across species.” Organs behaving independently? A somewhat ominous concept, no doubt, but it does explain a lot of the sounds we hear coming from our guts, which can get pretty frightening, especially on chili night.
 

Dog walking is dangerous business

Yes, you did read that right. A lot of strange things can send you to the emergency department. Go ahead and add dog walking onto that list.

Investigators from Johns Hopkins University estimate that over 422,000 adults presented to U.S. emergency departments with leash-dependent dog walking-related injuries between 2001 and 2020.

freestocks/Unsplash

With almost 53% of U.S. households owning at least one dog in 2021-2022 in the wake of the COVID pet boom, this kind of occurrence is becoming more common than you think. The annual number of dog-walking injuries more than quadrupled from 7,300 to 32,000 over the course of the study, and the researchers link that spike to the promotion of dog walking for fitness, along with the boost of ownership itself.

The most common injuries listed in the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System database were finger fracture, traumatic brain injury, and shoulder sprain or strain. These mostly involved falls from being pulled, tripped, or tangled up in the leash while walking. For those aged 65 years and older, traumatic brain injury and hip fracture were the most common.

Women were 50% more likely to sustain a fracture than were men, and dog owners aged 65 and older were three times as likely to fall, twice as likely to get a fracture, and 60% more likely to have brain injury than were younger people. Now, that’s not to say younger people don’t also get hurt. After all, dogs aren’t ageists. The researchers have that data but it’s coming out later.

Meanwhile, the pitfalls involved with just trying to get our daily steps in while letting Muffin do her business have us on the lookout for random squirrels.

Taking a swing against arthritis

Osteoarthritis is a tough disease to manage. Exercise helps ease the stiffness and pain of the joints, but at the same time, the disease makes it difficult to do that beneficial exercise. Even a relatively simple activity like jogging can hurt more than it helps. If only there were a low-impact exercise that was incredibly popular among the generally older population who are likely to have arthritis.

We love a good golf study here at LOTME, and a group of Australian and U.K. researchers have provided. Osteoarthritis affects 2 million people in the land down under, making it the most common source of disability there. In that population, only 64% reported their physical health to be good, very good, or excellent. Among the 459 golfers with OA that the study authors surveyed, however, the percentage reporting good health rose to more than 90%.

jacoblund/Getty Images

A similar story emerged when they looked at mental health. Nearly a quarter of nongolfers with OA reported high or very high levels of psychological distress, compared with just 8% of golfers. This pattern of improved physical and mental health remained when the researchers looked at the general, non-OA population.

This isn’t the first time golf’s been connected with improved health, and previous studies have shown golf to reduce the risks of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and obesity, among other things. Just walking one 18-hole round significantly exceeds the CDC’s recommended 150 minutes of physical activity per week. Go out multiple times a week – leaving the cart and beer at home, American golfers – and you’ll be fit for a lifetime.

The golfers on our staff, however, are still waiting for those mental health benefits to kick in. Because when we’re adding up our scorecard after that string of four double bogeys to end the round, we’re most definitely thinking: “Yes, this sport is reducing my psychological distress. I am having fun right now.”
 

Battle of the sexes’ intestines

There are, we’re sure you’ve noticed, some differences between males and females. Females, for one thing, have longer small intestines than males. Everybody knows that, right? You didn’t know? Really? … Really?

Afif Ramdhasuma/Unsplash

Well, then, we’re guessing you haven’t read “Hidden diversity: Comparative functional morphology of humans and other species” by Erin A. McKenney, PhD, of North Carolina State University, Raleigh, and associates, which just appeared in PeerJ. We couldn’t put it down, even in the shower – a real page-turner/scroller. (It’s a great way to clean a phone, for those who also like to scroll, text, or talk on the toilet.)

The researchers got out their rulers, calipers, and string and took many measurements of the digestive systems of 45 human cadavers (21 female and 24 male), which were compared with data from 10 rats, 10 pigs, and 10 bullfrogs, which had been collected (the measurements, not the animals) by undergraduate students enrolled in a comparative anatomy laboratory course at the university.

There was little intestinal-length variation among the four-legged subjects, but when it comes to humans, females have “consistently and significantly longer small intestines than males,” the investigators noted.

The women’s small intestines, almost 14 feet long on average, were about a foot longer than the men’s, which suggests that women are better able to extract nutrients from food and “supports the canalization hypothesis, which posits that women are better able to survive during periods of stress,” coauthor Amanda Hale said in a written statement from the school. The way to a man’s heart may be through his stomach, but the way to a woman’s heart is through her duodenum, it seems.

Fascinating stuff, to be sure, but the thing that really caught our eye in the PeerJ article was the authors’ suggestion “that organs behave independently of one another, both within and across species.” Organs behaving independently? A somewhat ominous concept, no doubt, but it does explain a lot of the sounds we hear coming from our guts, which can get pretty frightening, especially on chili night.
 

Dog walking is dangerous business

Yes, you did read that right. A lot of strange things can send you to the emergency department. Go ahead and add dog walking onto that list.

Investigators from Johns Hopkins University estimate that over 422,000 adults presented to U.S. emergency departments with leash-dependent dog walking-related injuries between 2001 and 2020.

freestocks/Unsplash

With almost 53% of U.S. households owning at least one dog in 2021-2022 in the wake of the COVID pet boom, this kind of occurrence is becoming more common than you think. The annual number of dog-walking injuries more than quadrupled from 7,300 to 32,000 over the course of the study, and the researchers link that spike to the promotion of dog walking for fitness, along with the boost of ownership itself.

The most common injuries listed in the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System database were finger fracture, traumatic brain injury, and shoulder sprain or strain. These mostly involved falls from being pulled, tripped, or tangled up in the leash while walking. For those aged 65 years and older, traumatic brain injury and hip fracture were the most common.

Women were 50% more likely to sustain a fracture than were men, and dog owners aged 65 and older were three times as likely to fall, twice as likely to get a fracture, and 60% more likely to have brain injury than were younger people. Now, that’s not to say younger people don’t also get hurt. After all, dogs aren’t ageists. The researchers have that data but it’s coming out later.

Meanwhile, the pitfalls involved with just trying to get our daily steps in while letting Muffin do her business have us on the lookout for random squirrels.

Taking a swing against arthritis

Osteoarthritis is a tough disease to manage. Exercise helps ease the stiffness and pain of the joints, but at the same time, the disease makes it difficult to do that beneficial exercise. Even a relatively simple activity like jogging can hurt more than it helps. If only there were a low-impact exercise that was incredibly popular among the generally older population who are likely to have arthritis.

We love a good golf study here at LOTME, and a group of Australian and U.K. researchers have provided. Osteoarthritis affects 2 million people in the land down under, making it the most common source of disability there. In that population, only 64% reported their physical health to be good, very good, or excellent. Among the 459 golfers with OA that the study authors surveyed, however, the percentage reporting good health rose to more than 90%.

jacoblund/Getty Images

A similar story emerged when they looked at mental health. Nearly a quarter of nongolfers with OA reported high or very high levels of psychological distress, compared with just 8% of golfers. This pattern of improved physical and mental health remained when the researchers looked at the general, non-OA population.

This isn’t the first time golf’s been connected with improved health, and previous studies have shown golf to reduce the risks of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and obesity, among other things. Just walking one 18-hole round significantly exceeds the CDC’s recommended 150 minutes of physical activity per week. Go out multiple times a week – leaving the cart and beer at home, American golfers – and you’ll be fit for a lifetime.

The golfers on our staff, however, are still waiting for those mental health benefits to kick in. Because when we’re adding up our scorecard after that string of four double bogeys to end the round, we’re most definitely thinking: “Yes, this sport is reducing my psychological distress. I am having fun right now.”
 

Battle of the sexes’ intestines

There are, we’re sure you’ve noticed, some differences between males and females. Females, for one thing, have longer small intestines than males. Everybody knows that, right? You didn’t know? Really? … Really?

Afif Ramdhasuma/Unsplash

Well, then, we’re guessing you haven’t read “Hidden diversity: Comparative functional morphology of humans and other species” by Erin A. McKenney, PhD, of North Carolina State University, Raleigh, and associates, which just appeared in PeerJ. We couldn’t put it down, even in the shower – a real page-turner/scroller. (It’s a great way to clean a phone, for those who also like to scroll, text, or talk on the toilet.)

The researchers got out their rulers, calipers, and string and took many measurements of the digestive systems of 45 human cadavers (21 female and 24 male), which were compared with data from 10 rats, 10 pigs, and 10 bullfrogs, which had been collected (the measurements, not the animals) by undergraduate students enrolled in a comparative anatomy laboratory course at the university.

There was little intestinal-length variation among the four-legged subjects, but when it comes to humans, females have “consistently and significantly longer small intestines than males,” the investigators noted.

The women’s small intestines, almost 14 feet long on average, were about a foot longer than the men’s, which suggests that women are better able to extract nutrients from food and “supports the canalization hypothesis, which posits that women are better able to survive during periods of stress,” coauthor Amanda Hale said in a written statement from the school. The way to a man’s heart may be through his stomach, but the way to a woman’s heart is through her duodenum, it seems.

Fascinating stuff, to be sure, but the thing that really caught our eye in the PeerJ article was the authors’ suggestion “that organs behave independently of one another, both within and across species.” Organs behaving independently? A somewhat ominous concept, no doubt, but it does explain a lot of the sounds we hear coming from our guts, which can get pretty frightening, especially on chili night.
 

Dog walking is dangerous business

Yes, you did read that right. A lot of strange things can send you to the emergency department. Go ahead and add dog walking onto that list.

Investigators from Johns Hopkins University estimate that over 422,000 adults presented to U.S. emergency departments with leash-dependent dog walking-related injuries between 2001 and 2020.

freestocks/Unsplash

With almost 53% of U.S. households owning at least one dog in 2021-2022 in the wake of the COVID pet boom, this kind of occurrence is becoming more common than you think. The annual number of dog-walking injuries more than quadrupled from 7,300 to 32,000 over the course of the study, and the researchers link that spike to the promotion of dog walking for fitness, along with the boost of ownership itself.

The most common injuries listed in the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System database were finger fracture, traumatic brain injury, and shoulder sprain or strain. These mostly involved falls from being pulled, tripped, or tangled up in the leash while walking. For those aged 65 years and older, traumatic brain injury and hip fracture were the most common.

Women were 50% more likely to sustain a fracture than were men, and dog owners aged 65 and older were three times as likely to fall, twice as likely to get a fracture, and 60% more likely to have brain injury than were younger people. Now, that’s not to say younger people don’t also get hurt. After all, dogs aren’t ageists. The researchers have that data but it’s coming out later.

Meanwhile, the pitfalls involved with just trying to get our daily steps in while letting Muffin do her business have us on the lookout for random squirrels.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the first treatment that takes a genetics-based approach to slowing or stopping the progression of a rare form of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), the debilitating and deadly disease for which there is no cure.
 

Most people with ALS die within 3-5 years of when symptoms appear, usually of respiratory failure.

The newly approved drug, called Qalsody, is made by the Swiss company Biogen. The FDA fast-tracked the approval based on early trial results. The agency said in a news release that its decision was based on the demonstrated ability of the drug to reduce a protein in the blood that is a sign of degeneration of brain and nerve cells.

While the drug was shown to impact the chemical process in the body linked to degeneration, there was no significant change in people’s symptoms during the first 28 weeks that they took the drug, Biogen said in a news release. But the company noted that some patients did see improved functioning after starting treatment.

“I have observed the positive impact Qalsody has on slowing the progression of ALS in people with SOD1 mutations,” Timothy M. Miller, MD, PhD, researcher and codirector of the ALS Center at Washington University in St. Louis, said in a statement released by Biogen. “The FDA’s approval of Qalsody gives me hope that people living with this rare form of ALS could experience a reduction in decline in strength, clinical function, and respiratory function.”

Qalsody is given to people via a spinal injection, with an initial course of three injections every 2 weeks. People then get the injection once every 28 days.

The new treatment is approved only for people with a rare kind of ALS called SOD1-ALS, which is known for a genetic mutation. While ALS affects up to 32,000 people in the United States, just 2% of people with ALS have the SOD1 gene mutation. The FDA says the number of people in the United States who could use Qalsody is about 500.

In trials, 147 people received either Qalsody or a placebo, and the treatment significantly reduced the level of a protein in people’s blood that is associated with the loss of control of voluntary muscles. 

Because Qalsody received a fast-track approval from the FDA, it must still provide more research data in the future, including from a trial examining how the drug affects people who carry the SOD1 gene but do not yet show symptoms of ALS.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the first treatment that takes a genetics-based approach to slowing or stopping the progression of a rare form of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), the debilitating and deadly disease for which there is no cure.
 

Most people with ALS die within 3-5 years of when symptoms appear, usually of respiratory failure.

The newly approved drug, called Qalsody, is made by the Swiss company Biogen. The FDA fast-tracked the approval based on early trial results. The agency said in a news release that its decision was based on the demonstrated ability of the drug to reduce a protein in the blood that is a sign of degeneration of brain and nerve cells.

While the drug was shown to impact the chemical process in the body linked to degeneration, there was no significant change in people’s symptoms during the first 28 weeks that they took the drug, Biogen said in a news release. But the company noted that some patients did see improved functioning after starting treatment.

“I have observed the positive impact Qalsody has on slowing the progression of ALS in people with SOD1 mutations,” Timothy M. Miller, MD, PhD, researcher and codirector of the ALS Center at Washington University in St. Louis, said in a statement released by Biogen. “The FDA’s approval of Qalsody gives me hope that people living with this rare form of ALS could experience a reduction in decline in strength, clinical function, and respiratory function.”

Qalsody is given to people via a spinal injection, with an initial course of three injections every 2 weeks. People then get the injection once every 28 days.

The new treatment is approved only for people with a rare kind of ALS called SOD1-ALS, which is known for a genetic mutation. While ALS affects up to 32,000 people in the United States, just 2% of people with ALS have the SOD1 gene mutation. The FDA says the number of people in the United States who could use Qalsody is about 500.

In trials, 147 people received either Qalsody or a placebo, and the treatment significantly reduced the level of a protein in people’s blood that is associated with the loss of control of voluntary muscles. 

Because Qalsody received a fast-track approval from the FDA, it must still provide more research data in the future, including from a trial examining how the drug affects people who carry the SOD1 gene but do not yet show symptoms of ALS.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the first treatment that takes a genetics-based approach to slowing or stopping the progression of a rare form of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), the debilitating and deadly disease for which there is no cure.
 

Most people with ALS die within 3-5 years of when symptoms appear, usually of respiratory failure.

The newly approved drug, called Qalsody, is made by the Swiss company Biogen. The FDA fast-tracked the approval based on early trial results. The agency said in a news release that its decision was based on the demonstrated ability of the drug to reduce a protein in the blood that is a sign of degeneration of brain and nerve cells.

While the drug was shown to impact the chemical process in the body linked to degeneration, there was no significant change in people’s symptoms during the first 28 weeks that they took the drug, Biogen said in a news release. But the company noted that some patients did see improved functioning after starting treatment.

“I have observed the positive impact Qalsody has on slowing the progression of ALS in people with SOD1 mutations,” Timothy M. Miller, MD, PhD, researcher and codirector of the ALS Center at Washington University in St. Louis, said in a statement released by Biogen. “The FDA’s approval of Qalsody gives me hope that people living with this rare form of ALS could experience a reduction in decline in strength, clinical function, and respiratory function.”

Qalsody is given to people via a spinal injection, with an initial course of three injections every 2 weeks. People then get the injection once every 28 days.

The new treatment is approved only for people with a rare kind of ALS called SOD1-ALS, which is known for a genetic mutation. While ALS affects up to 32,000 people in the United States, just 2% of people with ALS have the SOD1 gene mutation. The FDA says the number of people in the United States who could use Qalsody is about 500.

In trials, 147 people received either Qalsody or a placebo, and the treatment significantly reduced the level of a protein in people’s blood that is associated with the loss of control of voluntary muscles. 

Because Qalsody received a fast-track approval from the FDA, it must still provide more research data in the future, including from a trial examining how the drug affects people who carry the SOD1 gene but do not yet show symptoms of ALS.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

PHOENIX – When Kathy Givens walked onstage during a plenary session at the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery to reflect on her 9-month ordeal being sex trafficked in Texas more than 20 years ago, you could hear a pin drop.

“One of the scariest things about the life of sex trafficking is not knowing who’s going to be on the other side,” said Ms. Givens, who now lives in Houston. “There was some violence. There were some horrible things that happened. But you know what was really scary? When I got out. People may ask, ‘How’s that so? You escaped your trafficker. The past is behind you. Why were you afraid?’ I was afraid because I didn’t know that I had community. I didn’t know that community or that society would care about someone like me.”

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

She said that she found herself immobilized by fear of being shamed in society and labeled a sex trafficking victim, and wondered if she could overcome that fear and if anyone would view her as human again. Once free from her trafficker, she began a “healing journey,” which included getting married, raising four children, and re-enrolling in college with hopes of becoming a social worker. In 2020, she and her husband founded Twelve 11 Partners, an organization committed to supporting human trafficking survivors.

“I was working in the anti-trafficking field helping other survivors ... who have experienced this horrific crime,” she said. “I thought I was on my way.” But one “stain” from her sex trafficking past remained: The name of her trafficker was tattooed on her skin, “a reminder of what I’d gone through.”

Ms. Givens was eventually introduced to Paul M. Friedman, MD, the current ASLMS president and one of the nearly 90 physicians in the United States and Canada who perform tattoo removal free of charge for trafficking survivors as part of the New Beginnings: Tattoo Removal Program, a partnership between the ASLMS and the National Trafficking Sheltered Alliance (NTSA) that was formed in 2022. According to a survey that Dr. Friedman and colleagues presented at the 2022 annual ASLMS conference, an estimated 1 in 2 sex trafficking survivors have branding tattoos, and at least 1,000 survivors a year could benefit from removal of those tattoos.

“To date, 87 physicians in the U.S. and one in Canada have stepped forward to volunteer their services to be part of this program,” Dr. Friedman, who directs the Dermatology and Laser Surgery Center in Houston, said at this year’s meeting. “My goal is to double this number by the next annual conference,” he added, noting that trauma-informed training is part of the program, “to support the survivor experience during the treatment process.”

ASLMS is also working on this issue in partnership with the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) Ad Hoc Task Force on Dermatological Resources for the Intervention and Prevention of Human Trafficking, which is headed by Boston dermatologist Shadi Kourosh, MD.

“Dermatologists are uniquely positioned to aid in efforts to assist those experiences in trafficking with our training to recognize and diagnose relevant signs on the skin and to assist patients with certain aspects of care and recovery including the treatment of the disease of scars and tattoos,” Dr. Friedman said. “Ultimately, we hope to create a database together to improve recognition of branding tattoos to aid in identifying sex trafficking victims.”

Ms. Givens, who sits on the U.S. Advisory Council on Human Trafficking, said that she was able to truly close the door on her sex trafficking past thanks to the tattoo removal Dr. Friedman performed as part of New Beginnings. “It means the world to me to know that I can now be an advocate for other individuals who have experienced human trafficking,” she told meeting attendees.

“Again, one of the scariest things is not knowing that you have community. I was scared of losing hope, but I’m standing here today. I have all the hope that I need. You have the power to change lives.”

PHOENIX – When Kathy Givens walked onstage during a plenary session at the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery to reflect on her 9-month ordeal being sex trafficked in Texas more than 20 years ago, you could hear a pin drop.

“One of the scariest things about the life of sex trafficking is not knowing who’s going to be on the other side,” said Ms. Givens, who now lives in Houston. “There was some violence. There were some horrible things that happened. But you know what was really scary? When I got out. People may ask, ‘How’s that so? You escaped your trafficker. The past is behind you. Why were you afraid?’ I was afraid because I didn’t know that I had community. I didn’t know that community or that society would care about someone like me.”

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

She said that she found herself immobilized by fear of being shamed in society and labeled a sex trafficking victim, and wondered if she could overcome that fear and if anyone would view her as human again. Once free from her trafficker, she began a “healing journey,” which included getting married, raising four children, and re-enrolling in college with hopes of becoming a social worker. In 2020, she and her husband founded Twelve 11 Partners, an organization committed to supporting human trafficking survivors.

“I was working in the anti-trafficking field helping other survivors ... who have experienced this horrific crime,” she said. “I thought I was on my way.” But one “stain” from her sex trafficking past remained: The name of her trafficker was tattooed on her skin, “a reminder of what I’d gone through.”

Ms. Givens was eventually introduced to Paul M. Friedman, MD, the current ASLMS president and one of the nearly 90 physicians in the United States and Canada who perform tattoo removal free of charge for trafficking survivors as part of the New Beginnings: Tattoo Removal Program, a partnership between the ASLMS and the National Trafficking Sheltered Alliance (NTSA) that was formed in 2022. According to a survey that Dr. Friedman and colleagues presented at the 2022 annual ASLMS conference, an estimated 1 in 2 sex trafficking survivors have branding tattoos, and at least 1,000 survivors a year could benefit from removal of those tattoos.

“To date, 87 physicians in the U.S. and one in Canada have stepped forward to volunteer their services to be part of this program,” Dr. Friedman, who directs the Dermatology and Laser Surgery Center in Houston, said at this year’s meeting. “My goal is to double this number by the next annual conference,” he added, noting that trauma-informed training is part of the program, “to support the survivor experience during the treatment process.”

ASLMS is also working on this issue in partnership with the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) Ad Hoc Task Force on Dermatological Resources for the Intervention and Prevention of Human Trafficking, which is headed by Boston dermatologist Shadi Kourosh, MD.

“Dermatologists are uniquely positioned to aid in efforts to assist those experiences in trafficking with our training to recognize and diagnose relevant signs on the skin and to assist patients with certain aspects of care and recovery including the treatment of the disease of scars and tattoos,” Dr. Friedman said. “Ultimately, we hope to create a database together to improve recognition of branding tattoos to aid in identifying sex trafficking victims.”

Ms. Givens, who sits on the U.S. Advisory Council on Human Trafficking, said that she was able to truly close the door on her sex trafficking past thanks to the tattoo removal Dr. Friedman performed as part of New Beginnings. “It means the world to me to know that I can now be an advocate for other individuals who have experienced human trafficking,” she told meeting attendees.

“Again, one of the scariest things is not knowing that you have community. I was scared of losing hope, but I’m standing here today. I have all the hope that I need. You have the power to change lives.”

PHOENIX – When Kathy Givens walked onstage during a plenary session at the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery to reflect on her 9-month ordeal being sex trafficked in Texas more than 20 years ago, you could hear a pin drop.

“One of the scariest things about the life of sex trafficking is not knowing who’s going to be on the other side,” said Ms. Givens, who now lives in Houston. “There was some violence. There were some horrible things that happened. But you know what was really scary? When I got out. People may ask, ‘How’s that so? You escaped your trafficker. The past is behind you. Why were you afraid?’ I was afraid because I didn’t know that I had community. I didn’t know that community or that society would care about someone like me.”

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

She said that she found herself immobilized by fear of being shamed in society and labeled a sex trafficking victim, and wondered if she could overcome that fear and if anyone would view her as human again. Once free from her trafficker, she began a “healing journey,” which included getting married, raising four children, and re-enrolling in college with hopes of becoming a social worker. In 2020, she and her husband founded Twelve 11 Partners, an organization committed to supporting human trafficking survivors.

“I was working in the anti-trafficking field helping other survivors ... who have experienced this horrific crime,” she said. “I thought I was on my way.” But one “stain” from her sex trafficking past remained: The name of her trafficker was tattooed on her skin, “a reminder of what I’d gone through.”

Ms. Givens was eventually introduced to Paul M. Friedman, MD, the current ASLMS president and one of the nearly 90 physicians in the United States and Canada who perform tattoo removal free of charge for trafficking survivors as part of the New Beginnings: Tattoo Removal Program, a partnership between the ASLMS and the National Trafficking Sheltered Alliance (NTSA) that was formed in 2022. According to a survey that Dr. Friedman and colleagues presented at the 2022 annual ASLMS conference, an estimated 1 in 2 sex trafficking survivors have branding tattoos, and at least 1,000 survivors a year could benefit from removal of those tattoos.

“To date, 87 physicians in the U.S. and one in Canada have stepped forward to volunteer their services to be part of this program,” Dr. Friedman, who directs the Dermatology and Laser Surgery Center in Houston, said at this year’s meeting. “My goal is to double this number by the next annual conference,” he added, noting that trauma-informed training is part of the program, “to support the survivor experience during the treatment process.”

ASLMS is also working on this issue in partnership with the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) Ad Hoc Task Force on Dermatological Resources for the Intervention and Prevention of Human Trafficking, which is headed by Boston dermatologist Shadi Kourosh, MD.

“Dermatologists are uniquely positioned to aid in efforts to assist those experiences in trafficking with our training to recognize and diagnose relevant signs on the skin and to assist patients with certain aspects of care and recovery including the treatment of the disease of scars and tattoos,” Dr. Friedman said. “Ultimately, we hope to create a database together to improve recognition of branding tattoos to aid in identifying sex trafficking victims.”

Ms. Givens, who sits on the U.S. Advisory Council on Human Trafficking, said that she was able to truly close the door on her sex trafficking past thanks to the tattoo removal Dr. Friedman performed as part of New Beginnings. “It means the world to me to know that I can now be an advocate for other individuals who have experienced human trafficking,” she told meeting attendees.

“Again, one of the scariest things is not knowing that you have community. I was scared of losing hope, but I’m standing here today. I have all the hope that I need. You have the power to change lives.”

Exposure to four or more CT scans before age 18 years is associated with more than double the risk for certain cancers into early adulthood, data indicate.
 

In a population-based case-control study that included more than 85,000 participants, researchers found a ninefold increased risk of intracranial tumors among children who received four or more CT scans.

The results “indicate that judicious CT usage and radiation-reducing techniques should be advocated,” Yu-Hsuan Joni Shao, PhD, professor of biomedical informatics at Taipei (Taiwan) Medical University, and colleagues wrote.

The study was published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.
 

Dose-response relationship

The investigators used the National Health Insurance Research Database in Taiwan to identify 7,807 patients under age 25 years with intracranial tumors (grades I-IV), leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphomas, or Hodgkin lymphomas that had been diagnosed in a 14-year span between the years 2000 and 2013. They matched each case with 10 control participants without cancer by sex, date of birth, and date of entry into the cohort.

Radiation exposure was calculated for each patient according to number and type of CT scans received and an estimated organ-specific cumulative dose based on previously published models. The investigators excluded patients from the analysis if they had a diagnosis of any malignant disease before the study period or if they had any cancer-predisposing conditions, such as Down syndrome (which entails an increased risk of leukemia) or immunodeficiency (which may require multiple CT scans).

Compared with no exposure, exposure to a single pediatric CT scan was not associated with increased cancer risk. Exposure to two to three CT scans, however, was associated with an increased risk for intracranial tumour (adjusted odds ratio, 2.36), but not for leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, or Hodgkin lymphoma.  Exposure to four or more CT scans was associated with increased risk for intracranial tumor (aOR, 9.01), leukemia (aOR, 4.80), and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (aOR, 6.76), but not for Hodgkin lymphoma.

The researchers also found a dose-response relationship. Participants in the top quintile of cumulative brain radiation dose had a significantly higher risk for intracranial tumor, compared with nonexposed participants (aOR, 3.61), although this relationship was not seen with the other cancers.

Age at exposure was also a significant factor. Children exposed to four or more CT scans at or before age 6 years had the highest risk for cancer (aOR, 22.95), followed by the same number of scans in those aged 7-12 years (aOR, 5.69) and those aged 13-18 years (aOR, 3.20).

The authors noted that, although these cancers are uncommon in children, “our work reinforces the importance of radiation protection strategies, addressed by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Unnecessary CT scans should be avoided, and special attention should be paid to patients who require repeated CT scans. Parents and pediatric patients should be well informed on risks and benefits before radiological procedures and encouraged to participate in decision-making around imaging.”
 

True risks underestimated?  

Commenting on the findings, Rebecca Smith-Bindman, MD, a radiologist at the University of California, San Francisco, and an expert on the impact of CT scans on patient outcomes, said that she trusts the authors’ overall findings. But “because of the direction of their biases,” the study design “doesn’t let me accept their conclusion that one CT does not elevate the risk.

“It’s an interesting study that found the risk of brain cancer is more than doubled in children who undergo two or more CT scans, but in many ways, their assumptions will underestimate the true risk,” said Dr. Smith-Bindman, who is a professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at UCSF. She said reasons for this include the fact that the investigators used estimated, rather than actual radiation doses; that their estimates “reflect doses far lower than we have found actually occur in clinical practice”; that they do not differentiate between a low-dose or a high-dose CT; and that that they include a long, 3-year lag during which leukemia can develop after a CT scan.

“They did a lot of really well-done adjustments to ensure that they were not overestimating risk,” said Dr. Smith-Bindman. “They made sure to delete children who had cancer susceptibility syndrome, they included a lag of 3 years, assuming that there could be hidden cancers for up to 3 years after the first imaging study when they might have had a preexisting cancer. These are decisions that ensure that any cancer risk they find is real, but it also means that the risks that are estimated are almost certainly an underestimate of the true risks.”

The study was conducted without external funding. The authors declared no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Smith-Bindman is a cofounder of Alara Imaging, a company focused on collecting and reporting radiation dose information associated with CT.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Exposure to four or more CT scans before age 18 years is associated with more than double the risk for certain cancers into early adulthood, data indicate.
 

In a population-based case-control study that included more than 85,000 participants, researchers found a ninefold increased risk of intracranial tumors among children who received four or more CT scans.

The results “indicate that judicious CT usage and radiation-reducing techniques should be advocated,” Yu-Hsuan Joni Shao, PhD, professor of biomedical informatics at Taipei (Taiwan) Medical University, and colleagues wrote.

The study was published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.
 

Dose-response relationship

The investigators used the National Health Insurance Research Database in Taiwan to identify 7,807 patients under age 25 years with intracranial tumors (grades I-IV), leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphomas, or Hodgkin lymphomas that had been diagnosed in a 14-year span between the years 2000 and 2013. They matched each case with 10 control participants without cancer by sex, date of birth, and date of entry into the cohort.

Radiation exposure was calculated for each patient according to number and type of CT scans received and an estimated organ-specific cumulative dose based on previously published models. The investigators excluded patients from the analysis if they had a diagnosis of any malignant disease before the study period or if they had any cancer-predisposing conditions, such as Down syndrome (which entails an increased risk of leukemia) or immunodeficiency (which may require multiple CT scans).

Compared with no exposure, exposure to a single pediatric CT scan was not associated with increased cancer risk. Exposure to two to three CT scans, however, was associated with an increased risk for intracranial tumour (adjusted odds ratio, 2.36), but not for leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, or Hodgkin lymphoma.  Exposure to four or more CT scans was associated with increased risk for intracranial tumor (aOR, 9.01), leukemia (aOR, 4.80), and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (aOR, 6.76), but not for Hodgkin lymphoma.

The researchers also found a dose-response relationship. Participants in the top quintile of cumulative brain radiation dose had a significantly higher risk for intracranial tumor, compared with nonexposed participants (aOR, 3.61), although this relationship was not seen with the other cancers.

Age at exposure was also a significant factor. Children exposed to four or more CT scans at or before age 6 years had the highest risk for cancer (aOR, 22.95), followed by the same number of scans in those aged 7-12 years (aOR, 5.69) and those aged 13-18 years (aOR, 3.20).

The authors noted that, although these cancers are uncommon in children, “our work reinforces the importance of radiation protection strategies, addressed by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Unnecessary CT scans should be avoided, and special attention should be paid to patients who require repeated CT scans. Parents and pediatric patients should be well informed on risks and benefits before radiological procedures and encouraged to participate in decision-making around imaging.”
 

True risks underestimated?  

Commenting on the findings, Rebecca Smith-Bindman, MD, a radiologist at the University of California, San Francisco, and an expert on the impact of CT scans on patient outcomes, said that she trusts the authors’ overall findings. But “because of the direction of their biases,” the study design “doesn’t let me accept their conclusion that one CT does not elevate the risk.

“It’s an interesting study that found the risk of brain cancer is more than doubled in children who undergo two or more CT scans, but in many ways, their assumptions will underestimate the true risk,” said Dr. Smith-Bindman, who is a professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at UCSF. She said reasons for this include the fact that the investigators used estimated, rather than actual radiation doses; that their estimates “reflect doses far lower than we have found actually occur in clinical practice”; that they do not differentiate between a low-dose or a high-dose CT; and that that they include a long, 3-year lag during which leukemia can develop after a CT scan.

“They did a lot of really well-done adjustments to ensure that they were not overestimating risk,” said Dr. Smith-Bindman. “They made sure to delete children who had cancer susceptibility syndrome, they included a lag of 3 years, assuming that there could be hidden cancers for up to 3 years after the first imaging study when they might have had a preexisting cancer. These are decisions that ensure that any cancer risk they find is real, but it also means that the risks that are estimated are almost certainly an underestimate of the true risks.”

The study was conducted without external funding. The authors declared no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Smith-Bindman is a cofounder of Alara Imaging, a company focused on collecting and reporting radiation dose information associated with CT.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Exposure to four or more CT scans before age 18 years is associated with more than double the risk for certain cancers into early adulthood, data indicate.
 

In a population-based case-control study that included more than 85,000 participants, researchers found a ninefold increased risk of intracranial tumors among children who received four or more CT scans.

The results “indicate that judicious CT usage and radiation-reducing techniques should be advocated,” Yu-Hsuan Joni Shao, PhD, professor of biomedical informatics at Taipei (Taiwan) Medical University, and colleagues wrote.

The study was published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.
 

Dose-response relationship

The investigators used the National Health Insurance Research Database in Taiwan to identify 7,807 patients under age 25 years with intracranial tumors (grades I-IV), leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphomas, or Hodgkin lymphomas that had been diagnosed in a 14-year span between the years 2000 and 2013. They matched each case with 10 control participants without cancer by sex, date of birth, and date of entry into the cohort.

Radiation exposure was calculated for each patient according to number and type of CT scans received and an estimated organ-specific cumulative dose based on previously published models. The investigators excluded patients from the analysis if they had a diagnosis of any malignant disease before the study period or if they had any cancer-predisposing conditions, such as Down syndrome (which entails an increased risk of leukemia) or immunodeficiency (which may require multiple CT scans).

Compared with no exposure, exposure to a single pediatric CT scan was not associated with increased cancer risk. Exposure to two to three CT scans, however, was associated with an increased risk for intracranial tumour (adjusted odds ratio, 2.36), but not for leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, or Hodgkin lymphoma.  Exposure to four or more CT scans was associated with increased risk for intracranial tumor (aOR, 9.01), leukemia (aOR, 4.80), and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (aOR, 6.76), but not for Hodgkin lymphoma.

The researchers also found a dose-response relationship. Participants in the top quintile of cumulative brain radiation dose had a significantly higher risk for intracranial tumor, compared with nonexposed participants (aOR, 3.61), although this relationship was not seen with the other cancers.

Age at exposure was also a significant factor. Children exposed to four or more CT scans at or before age 6 years had the highest risk for cancer (aOR, 22.95), followed by the same number of scans in those aged 7-12 years (aOR, 5.69) and those aged 13-18 years (aOR, 3.20).

The authors noted that, although these cancers are uncommon in children, “our work reinforces the importance of radiation protection strategies, addressed by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Unnecessary CT scans should be avoided, and special attention should be paid to patients who require repeated CT scans. Parents and pediatric patients should be well informed on risks and benefits before radiological procedures and encouraged to participate in decision-making around imaging.”
 

True risks underestimated?  

Commenting on the findings, Rebecca Smith-Bindman, MD, a radiologist at the University of California, San Francisco, and an expert on the impact of CT scans on patient outcomes, said that she trusts the authors’ overall findings. But “because of the direction of their biases,” the study design “doesn’t let me accept their conclusion that one CT does not elevate the risk.

“It’s an interesting study that found the risk of brain cancer is more than doubled in children who undergo two or more CT scans, but in many ways, their assumptions will underestimate the true risk,” said Dr. Smith-Bindman, who is a professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at UCSF. She said reasons for this include the fact that the investigators used estimated, rather than actual radiation doses; that their estimates “reflect doses far lower than we have found actually occur in clinical practice”; that they do not differentiate between a low-dose or a high-dose CT; and that that they include a long, 3-year lag during which leukemia can develop after a CT scan.

“They did a lot of really well-done adjustments to ensure that they were not overestimating risk,” said Dr. Smith-Bindman. “They made sure to delete children who had cancer susceptibility syndrome, they included a lag of 3 years, assuming that there could be hidden cancers for up to 3 years after the first imaging study when they might have had a preexisting cancer. These are decisions that ensure that any cancer risk they find is real, but it also means that the risks that are estimated are almost certainly an underestimate of the true risks.”

The study was conducted without external funding. The authors declared no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Smith-Bindman is a cofounder of Alara Imaging, a company focused on collecting and reporting radiation dose information associated with CT.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The vast majority of melatonin gummies sold in the United States may contain up to 347% more melatonin than is listed on the label, and some products also contain cannabidiol. New data may explain the recent massive jump in pediatric hospitalizations.
 

Thenvestigators found that consuming some products as directed could expose consumers, including children, to doses that are 40-130 times greater than what’s recommended.

“The results were quite shocking,” lead researcher Pieter Cohen, MD, with Harvard Medical School, Boston, and Cambridge Health Alliance, Somerville, Mass., said in an interview.

“Melatonin gummies contained up to 347% more melatonin than what was listed on the label, and some products also contained cannabidiol; in one brand of melatonin gummies, there was zero melatonin, just CBD,” Dr. Cohen said.

The study was published online in JAMA.
 

530% jump in pediatric hospitalizations

Melatonin products are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration but are sold over the counter or online.

Previous research from JAMA has shown the use of melatonin has increased over the past 2 decades among people of all ages.

With increased use has come a spike in reports of melatonin overdose, calls to poison control centers, and related ED visits for children.

Federal data show the number of U.S. children who unintentionally ingested melatonin supplements jumped 530% from 2012 to 2021. More than 4,000 of the reported ingestions led to a hospital stay; 287 children required intensive care, and two children died.

It was unclear why melatonin supplements were causing these harms, which led Dr. Cohen’s team to analyze 25 unique brands of “melatonin” gummies purchased online.

One product didn’t contain any melatonin but did contain 31.3 mg of CBD.

In the remaining products, the quantity of melatonin ranged from 1.3 mg to 13.1 mg per serving. The actual quantity of melatonin ranged from 74% to 347% of the labeled quantity, the researchers found.

They note that for a young adult who takes as little as 0.1-0.3 mg of melatonin, plasma concentrations can increase into the normal night-time range.

Of the 25 products (88%) analyzed, 22 were inaccurately labeled, and only 3 (12%) contained a quantity of melatonin that was within 10% (plus or minus) of the declared quantity.

Five products listed CBD as an ingredient. The listed quantity ranged from 10.6 mg to 31.3 mg per serving, although the actual quantity of CBD ranged from 104% to 118% of the labeled quantity.
 

Inquire about use in kids

A limitation of the study is that only one sample of each brand was analyzed, and only gummies were analyzed. It is not known whether the results are generalizable to melatonin products sold as tablets and capsules in the United States or whether the quantity of melatonin within an individual brand may vary from batch to batch.

A recent study from Canada showed similar results. In an analysis of 16 Canadian melatonin brands, the actual dose of melatonin ranged from 17% to 478% of the declared quantity.

It’s estimated that more than 1% of all U.S. children use melatonin supplements, most commonly for sleep, stress, and relaxation.

“Given new research as to the excessive quantities of melatonin in gummies, caution should be used if considering their use,” said Dr. Cohen.

“It’s important to inquire about melatonin use when caring for children, particularly when parents express concerns about their child’s sleep,” he added.

The American Academy of Sleep Medicine recently issued a health advisory encouraging parents to talk to a health care professional before giving melatonin or any supplement to children.
 

Children don’t need melatonin

Commenting on the study, Michael Breus, PhD, clinical psychologist and founder of TheSleepDoctor.com, agreed that analyzing only one sample of each brand is a key limitation “because supplements are made in batches, and gummies in particular are difficult to distribute the active ingredient evenly.

“But even with that being said, 88% of them were labeled incorrectly, so even if there were a few single-sample issues, I kind of doubt its all of them,” Dr. Breus said.

“Kids as a general rule do not need melatonin. Their brains make almost four times the necessary amount already. If you start giving kids pills to help them sleep, then they start to have a pill problem, causing another issue,” Dr. Breus added.

“Most children’s falling asleep and staying sleep issues can be treated with behavioral measures like cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia,” he said.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Cohen has received research support from Consumers Union and PEW Charitable Trusts and royalties from UptoDate. Dr. Breus disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The vast majority of melatonin gummies sold in the United States may contain up to 347% more melatonin than is listed on the label, and some products also contain cannabidiol. New data may explain the recent massive jump in pediatric hospitalizations.
 

Thenvestigators found that consuming some products as directed could expose consumers, including children, to doses that are 40-130 times greater than what’s recommended.

“The results were quite shocking,” lead researcher Pieter Cohen, MD, with Harvard Medical School, Boston, and Cambridge Health Alliance, Somerville, Mass., said in an interview.

“Melatonin gummies contained up to 347% more melatonin than what was listed on the label, and some products also contained cannabidiol; in one brand of melatonin gummies, there was zero melatonin, just CBD,” Dr. Cohen said.

The study was published online in JAMA.
 

530% jump in pediatric hospitalizations

Melatonin products are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration but are sold over the counter or online.

Previous research from JAMA has shown the use of melatonin has increased over the past 2 decades among people of all ages.

With increased use has come a spike in reports of melatonin overdose, calls to poison control centers, and related ED visits for children.

Federal data show the number of U.S. children who unintentionally ingested melatonin supplements jumped 530% from 2012 to 2021. More than 4,000 of the reported ingestions led to a hospital stay; 287 children required intensive care, and two children died.

It was unclear why melatonin supplements were causing these harms, which led Dr. Cohen’s team to analyze 25 unique brands of “melatonin” gummies purchased online.

One product didn’t contain any melatonin but did contain 31.3 mg of CBD.

In the remaining products, the quantity of melatonin ranged from 1.3 mg to 13.1 mg per serving. The actual quantity of melatonin ranged from 74% to 347% of the labeled quantity, the researchers found.

They note that for a young adult who takes as little as 0.1-0.3 mg of melatonin, plasma concentrations can increase into the normal night-time range.

Of the 25 products (88%) analyzed, 22 were inaccurately labeled, and only 3 (12%) contained a quantity of melatonin that was within 10% (plus or minus) of the declared quantity.

Five products listed CBD as an ingredient. The listed quantity ranged from 10.6 mg to 31.3 mg per serving, although the actual quantity of CBD ranged from 104% to 118% of the labeled quantity.
 

Inquire about use in kids

A limitation of the study is that only one sample of each brand was analyzed, and only gummies were analyzed. It is not known whether the results are generalizable to melatonin products sold as tablets and capsules in the United States or whether the quantity of melatonin within an individual brand may vary from batch to batch.

A recent study from Canada showed similar results. In an analysis of 16 Canadian melatonin brands, the actual dose of melatonin ranged from 17% to 478% of the declared quantity.

It’s estimated that more than 1% of all U.S. children use melatonin supplements, most commonly for sleep, stress, and relaxation.

“Given new research as to the excessive quantities of melatonin in gummies, caution should be used if considering their use,” said Dr. Cohen.

“It’s important to inquire about melatonin use when caring for children, particularly when parents express concerns about their child’s sleep,” he added.

The American Academy of Sleep Medicine recently issued a health advisory encouraging parents to talk to a health care professional before giving melatonin or any supplement to children.
 

Children don’t need melatonin

Commenting on the study, Michael Breus, PhD, clinical psychologist and founder of TheSleepDoctor.com, agreed that analyzing only one sample of each brand is a key limitation “because supplements are made in batches, and gummies in particular are difficult to distribute the active ingredient evenly.

“But even with that being said, 88% of them were labeled incorrectly, so even if there were a few single-sample issues, I kind of doubt its all of them,” Dr. Breus said.

“Kids as a general rule do not need melatonin. Their brains make almost four times the necessary amount already. If you start giving kids pills to help them sleep, then they start to have a pill problem, causing another issue,” Dr. Breus added.

“Most children’s falling asleep and staying sleep issues can be treated with behavioral measures like cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia,” he said.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Cohen has received research support from Consumers Union and PEW Charitable Trusts and royalties from UptoDate. Dr. Breus disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The vast majority of melatonin gummies sold in the United States may contain up to 347% more melatonin than is listed on the label, and some products also contain cannabidiol. New data may explain the recent massive jump in pediatric hospitalizations.
 

Thenvestigators found that consuming some products as directed could expose consumers, including children, to doses that are 40-130 times greater than what’s recommended.

“The results were quite shocking,” lead researcher Pieter Cohen, MD, with Harvard Medical School, Boston, and Cambridge Health Alliance, Somerville, Mass., said in an interview.

“Melatonin gummies contained up to 347% more melatonin than what was listed on the label, and some products also contained cannabidiol; in one brand of melatonin gummies, there was zero melatonin, just CBD,” Dr. Cohen said.

The study was published online in JAMA.
 

530% jump in pediatric hospitalizations

Melatonin products are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration but are sold over the counter or online.

Previous research from JAMA has shown the use of melatonin has increased over the past 2 decades among people of all ages.

With increased use has come a spike in reports of melatonin overdose, calls to poison control centers, and related ED visits for children.

Federal data show the number of U.S. children who unintentionally ingested melatonin supplements jumped 530% from 2012 to 2021. More than 4,000 of the reported ingestions led to a hospital stay; 287 children required intensive care, and two children died.

It was unclear why melatonin supplements were causing these harms, which led Dr. Cohen’s team to analyze 25 unique brands of “melatonin” gummies purchased online.

One product didn’t contain any melatonin but did contain 31.3 mg of CBD.

In the remaining products, the quantity of melatonin ranged from 1.3 mg to 13.1 mg per serving. The actual quantity of melatonin ranged from 74% to 347% of the labeled quantity, the researchers found.

They note that for a young adult who takes as little as 0.1-0.3 mg of melatonin, plasma concentrations can increase into the normal night-time range.

Of the 25 products (88%) analyzed, 22 were inaccurately labeled, and only 3 (12%) contained a quantity of melatonin that was within 10% (plus or minus) of the declared quantity.

Five products listed CBD as an ingredient. The listed quantity ranged from 10.6 mg to 31.3 mg per serving, although the actual quantity of CBD ranged from 104% to 118% of the labeled quantity.
 

Inquire about use in kids

A limitation of the study is that only one sample of each brand was analyzed, and only gummies were analyzed. It is not known whether the results are generalizable to melatonin products sold as tablets and capsules in the United States or whether the quantity of melatonin within an individual brand may vary from batch to batch.

A recent study from Canada showed similar results. In an analysis of 16 Canadian melatonin brands, the actual dose of melatonin ranged from 17% to 478% of the declared quantity.

It’s estimated that more than 1% of all U.S. children use melatonin supplements, most commonly for sleep, stress, and relaxation.

“Given new research as to the excessive quantities of melatonin in gummies, caution should be used if considering their use,” said Dr. Cohen.

“It’s important to inquire about melatonin use when caring for children, particularly when parents express concerns about their child’s sleep,” he added.

The American Academy of Sleep Medicine recently issued a health advisory encouraging parents to talk to a health care professional before giving melatonin or any supplement to children.
 

Children don’t need melatonin

Commenting on the study, Michael Breus, PhD, clinical psychologist and founder of TheSleepDoctor.com, agreed that analyzing only one sample of each brand is a key limitation “because supplements are made in batches, and gummies in particular are difficult to distribute the active ingredient evenly.

“But even with that being said, 88% of them were labeled incorrectly, so even if there were a few single-sample issues, I kind of doubt its all of them,” Dr. Breus said.

“Kids as a general rule do not need melatonin. Their brains make almost four times the necessary amount already. If you start giving kids pills to help them sleep, then they start to have a pill problem, causing another issue,” Dr. Breus added.

“Most children’s falling asleep and staying sleep issues can be treated with behavioral measures like cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia,” he said.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Cohen has received research support from Consumers Union and PEW Charitable Trusts and royalties from UptoDate. Dr. Breus disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

COVID-19 is a potentially severe systemic disease caused by SARS-CoV-2. SARS-CoV and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS-CoV) caused fatal epidemics in Asia in 2002 to 2003 and in the Arabian Peninsula in 2012, respectively. In 2019, SARS-CoV-2 was detected in patients with severe, sometimes fatal pneumonia of previously unknown origin; it rapidly spread around the world, and the World Health Organization declared the disease a pandemic on March 11, 2020. SARS-CoV-2 is a β-coronavirus that is genetically related to the bat coronavirus and SARS-CoV; it is a single-stranded RNA virus of which several variants and subvariants exist. The SARS-CoV-2 viral particles bind via their surface spike protein (S protein) to the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptor present on the membrane of several cell types, including epidermal and adnexal keratinocytes.^1,2 The α and δ variants, predominant from 2020 to 2021, mainly affected the lower respiratory tract and caused severe, potentially fatal pneumonia, especially in patients older than 65 years and/or with comorbidities, such as obesity, hypertension, diabetes, and (iatrogenic) immunosuppression. The ο variant, which appeared in late 2021, is more contagious than the initial variants, but it causes a less severe disease preferentially affecting the upper respiratory airways.³ As of April 5, 2023, more than 762,000,000 confirmed cases of COVID-19 have been recorded worldwide, causing more than 6,800,000 deaths.⁴

Early studies from China describing the symptoms of COVID-19 reported a low frequency of skin manifestations (0.2%), probably because they were focused on the most severe disease symptoms.⁵ Subsequently, when COVID-19 spread to the rest of the world, an increasing number of skin manifestations were reported in association with the disease. After the first publication from northern Italy in spring 2020, which was specifically devoted to skin manifestations of COVID-19,⁶ an explosive number of publications reported a large number of skin manifestations, and national registries were established in several countries to record these manifestations, such as the American Academy of Dermatology and the International League of Dermatological Societies registry,^7,8 the COVIDSKIN registry of the French Dermatology Society,⁹ and the Italian registry.¹⁰ Highlighting the unprecedented number of scientific articles published on this new disease, a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE search using the terms SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19, on April 6, 2023, revealed 351,596 articles; that is more than 300 articles published every day in this database alone, with a large number of them concerning the skin.

SKIN DISEASSES ASSOCIATED WITH COVID-19

There are several types of COVID-19–related skin manifestations, depending on the circumstances of onset and the evolution of the pandemic.

Skin Manifestations Associated With SARS-CoV-2 Infection

The estimated incidence varies greatly according to the published series of patients, possibly depending on the geographic location. The estimated incidence seems lower in Asian countries, such as China (0.2%)⁵ and Japan (0.56%),¹¹ compared with Europe (up to 20%).⁶ Skin manifestations associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection affect individuals of all ages, slightly more females, and are clinically polymorphous; some of them are associated with the severity of the infection.¹² They may precede, accompany, or appear after the symptoms of COVID-19, most often within a month of the infection, of which they rarely are the only manifestation; however, their precise relationship to SARS-CoV-2 is not always well known. They have been classified according to their clinical presentation into several forms.^13-15

Morbilliform Maculopapular Eruption—Representing 16% to 53% of skin manifestations, morbilliform and maculopapular eruptions usually appear within 15 days of infection; they manifest with more or less confluent erythematous macules that may be hemorrhagic/petechial, and usually are asymptomatic and rarely pruritic. The rash mainly affects the trunk and limbs, sparing the face, palmoplantar regions, and mucous membranes; it appears concomitantly with or a few days after the first symptoms of COVID-19 (eg, fever, respiratory symptoms), regresses within a few days, and does not appear to be associated with disease severity. The distinction from maculopapular drug eruptions may be subtle. Histologically, the rash manifests with a spongiform dermatitis (ie, variable parakeratosis; spongiosis; and a mixed dermal perivascular infiltrate of lymphocytes, eosinophils and histiocytes, depending on the lesion age)(Figure 1). The etiopathogenesis is unknown; it may involve immune complexes to SARS-CoV-2 deposited on skin vessels. Treatment is not mandatory; if necessary, local or systemic corticosteroids may be used.

Vesicular (Pseudovaricella) Rash—This rash accounts for 11% to 18% of all skin manifestations and usually appears within 15 days of COVID-19 onset. It manifests with small monomorphous or varicellalike (pseudopolymorphic) vesicles appearing on the trunk, usually in young patients. The vesicles may be herpetiform, hemorrhagic, or pruritic, and appear before or within 3 days of the onset of mild COVID-19 symptoms; they regress within a few days without scarring. Histologically, the lesions show basal cell vacuolization; multinucleated, dyskeratotic/apoptotic or ballooning/acantholytic epidermal keratinocytes; reticular degeneration of the epidermis; intraepidermal vesicles sometimes resembling herpetic vesicular infections or Grover disease; and mild dermal inflammation. There is no specific treatment.

Urticaria—Urticarial rash, or urticaria, represents 5% to 16% of skin manifestations; usually appears within 15 days of disease onset; and manifests with pruritic, migratory, edematous papules appearing mainly on the trunk and occasionally the face and limbs. The urticarial rash tends to be associated with more severe forms of the disease and regresses within a week, responding to antihistamines. Of note, clinically similar rashes can be caused by drugs. Histologically, the lesions show dermal edema and a mild perivascular lymphocytic infiltrate, sometimes admixed with eosinophils.

Chilblainlike Lesions—Chilblainlike lesions (CBLLs) account for 19% of skin manifestations associated with COVID-19¹³ and present as erythematous-purplish, edematous lesions that can be mildly pruritic or painful, appearing on the toes—COVID toes—and more rarely the fingers (Figure 2). They were seen epidemically during the first pandemic wave (2020 lockdown) in several countries, and clinically are very similar to, if not indistinguishable from, idiopathic chilblains, but are not necessarily associated with cold exposure. They appear in young, generally healthy patients or those with mild COVID-19 symptoms 2 to 4 weeks after symptom onset. They regress spontaneously or under local corticosteroid treatment within a few days or weeks. Histologically, CBLLs are indistinguishable from chilblains of other origins, namely idiopathic (seasonal) ones. They manifest with necrosis of epidermal keratinocytes; dermal edema that may be severe, leading to the development of subepidermal pseudobullae; a rather dense perivascular and perieccrine gland lymphocytic infiltrate; and sometimes with vascular lesions (eg, edema of endothelial cells, microthromboses of dermal capillaries and venules, fibrinoid deposits within the wall of dermal venules)(Figure 3).^16-18 Most patients (>80%) with CBLLs have negative serologic or polymerase chain reaction tests for SARS-CoV-2,¹⁹ which generated a lively debate about the role of SARS-CoV-2 in the genesis of CBLLs. According to some authors, SARS-CoV-2 plays no direct role, and CBLLs would occur in young people who sit or walk barefoot on cold floors at home during confinement.^20-23 Remarkably, CBLLs appeared in patients with no history of chilblains during a season that was not particularly cold, namely in France or in southern California, where their incidence was much higher compared to the same time period of prior years. Some reports have supported a direct role for the virus based on questionable observations of the virus within skin lesions (eg, sweat glands, endothelial cells) by immunohistochemistry, electron microscopy, and/or in situ hybridization.^17,24,25 A more satisfactory hypothesis would involve the role of a strong innate immunity leading to elimination of the virus before the development of specific antibodies via the increased production of type 1 interferon (IFN-1); this would affect the vessels, causing CBLLs. This mechanism would be similar to the one observed in some interferonopathies (eg, Aicardi-Goutières syndrome), also characterized by IFN-1 hypersecretion and chilblains.^26-29 According to this hypothesis, CBLLs should be considered a paraviral rash similar to other skin manifestations associated with COVID-19.³⁰

Acro-ischemia—Acro-ischemia livedoid lesions account for 1% to 6% of skin manifestations and comprise lesions of livedo (either reticulated or racemosa); necrotic acral bullae; and gangrenous necrosis of the extremities, especially the toes. The livedoid lesions most often appear within 15 days of COVID-19 symptom onset, and the purpuric lesions somewhat later (2–4 weeks); they mainly affect adult patients, last about 10 days, and are the hallmark of severe infection, presumably related to microthromboses of the cutaneous capillaries (endothelial dysfunction, prothrombotic state, elevated D-dimers). Histologically, they show capillary thrombosis and dermoepidermal necrosis (Figure 4).

Other Reported Polymorphic or Atypical Rashes—Erythema multiforme–like eruptions may appear before other COVID-19 symptoms and manifest as reddish-purple, nearly symmetric, diffuse, occasionally targetoid bullous or necrotic macules. The eruptions mainly affect adults and most often are seen on the palms, elbows, knees, and sometimes the mucous membranes. The rash regresses in 1 to 3 weeks without scarring and represents a delayed cutaneous hypersensitivity reaction. Histologically, the lesions show vacuolization of basal epidermal keratinocytes, keratinocyte necrosis, dermoepidermal detachment, a variably dense dermal T-lymphocytic infiltrate, and red blood cell extravasation (Figure 5).

Leukocytoclastic vasculitis may be generalized or localized. It manifests clinically by petechial/purpuric maculopapules, especially on the legs, mainly in elderly patients with COVID-19. Histologically, the lesions show necrotizing changes of dermal postcapillary venules, neutrophilic perivascular inflammation, red blood cell extravasation, and occasionally vascular IgA deposits by direct immunofluorescence examination. The course usually is benign.

The incidence of pityriasis rosea and of clinically similar rashes (referred to as “pityriasis rosea–like”) increased 5-fold during the COVID-19 pandemic.^31,32 These dermatoses manifest with erythematous, scaly, circinate plaques, typically with an initial herald lesion followed a few days later by smaller erythematous macules. Histologically, the lesions comprise a spongiform dermatitis with intraepidermal exocytosis of red blood cells and a mild to moderate dermal lymphocytic infiltrate.

Erythrodysesthesia, or hand-foot syndrome, manifests with edematous erythema and palmoplantar desquamation accompanied by a burning sensation or pain. This syndrome is known as an adverse effect of some chemotherapies because of the associated drug toxicity and sweat gland inflammation; it was observed in 40% of 666 COVID-19–positive patients with mild to moderate pneumonitis.³³

“COVID nose” is a rare cutaneous manifestation characterized by nasal pigmentation comprising multiple coalescent frecklelike macules on the tip and wings of the nose and sometimes the malar areas. These lesions predominantly appear in women aged 25 to 65 years and show on average 23 days after onset of COVID-19, which is usually mild. This pigmentation is similar to pigmentary changes after infection with chikungunya; it can be treated with depigmenting products such as azelaic acid and hydroquinone cream with sunscreen use, and it regresses in 2 to 4 months.³⁴

Telogen effluvium (excessive and temporary shedding of normal telogen club hairs of the entire scalp due to the disturbance of the hair cycle) is reportedly frequent in patients (48%) 1 month after COVID-19 infection, but it may appear later (after 12 weeks).³⁵ Alopecia also is frequently reported during long (or postacute) COVID-19 (ie, the symptomatic disease phase past the acute 4 weeks’ stage of the infection) and shows a female predominance³⁶; it likely represents the telogen effluvium seen 90 days after a severe illness. Trichodynia (pruritus, burning, pain, or paresthesia of the scalp) also is reportedly common (developing in more than 58% of patients) and is associated with telogen effluvium in 44% of cases. Several cases of alopecia areata (AA) triggered or aggravated by COVID-19 also have been reported^37,38; they could be explained by the “cytokine storm” triggered by the infection, involving T and B lymphocytes; plasmacytoid dendritic cells; natural killer cells with oversecretion of IL-6, IL-4, tumor necrosis factor α, and IFN type I; and a cytotoxic reaction associated with loss of the immune privilege of hair follicles.

Nail Manifestations

The red half-moon nail sign is an asymptomatic purplish-red band around the distal margin of the lunula that affects some adult patients with COVID-19.³⁹ It appears shortly after onset of symptoms, likely the manifestation of vascular inflammation in the nail bed, and regresses slowly after approximately 1 week.⁴⁰ Beau lines are transverse grooves in the nail plate due to the temporary arrest of the proximal nail matrix growth accompanying systemic illnesses; they appear approximately 2 to 3 weeks after the onset of COVID-19.⁴¹ Furthermore, nail alterations can be caused by drugs used to treat COVID-19, such as longitudinal melanonychia due to treatment with hydroxychloroquine or fluorescence of the lunula or nail plate due to treatment with favipiravir.⁴²

Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome

Multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS) is clinically similar to Kawasaki disease; it typically affects children⁴³ and more rarely adults with COVID-19. It manifests with fever, weakness, and biological inflammation and also frequently with skin lesions (72%), which are polymorphous and include morbilliform rash (27%); urticaria (24%); periorbital edema (24%); nonspecific erythema (21.2%); retiform purpura (18%); targetoid lesions (15%); malar rash (15.2%); and periareolar erythema (6%).⁴⁴ Compared to Kawasaki disease, MIS affects slightly older children (mean age, 8.5 vs 3 years) and more frequently includes cardiac and gastrointestinal manifestations; the mortality rate also is slightly higher (2% vs 0.17%).⁴⁵

Confirmed COVID-19 Infection

At the beginning of the pandemic, skin manifestations were reported in patients who were suspected of having COVID-19 but did not always have biological confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 infection due to the unavailability of diagnostic tests or the physical impossibility of testing. However, subsequent studies have confirmed that most of these dermatoses were indeed associated with COVID-19 infection.^9,46 For example, a study of 655 patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection reported maculopapular (38%), vascular (22%), urticarial (15%), and vesicular (15%) rashes; erythema multiforme or Stevens-Johnson–like syndrome (3%, often related to the use of hydroxychloroquine); generalized pruritus (1%); and MIS (0.5%). The study confirmed that CBLLs were mostly seen in young patients with mild disease, whereas livedo (fixed rash) and retiform purpura occurred in older patients with a guarded prognosis.⁴⁶

Remarkably, most dermatoses associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection were reported during the initial waves of the pandemic, which were due to the α and δ viral variants. These manifestations were reported more rarely when the ο variant was predominant, even though most patients (63%) who developed CBLLs in the first wave also developed them during the second pandemic wave.⁴⁷ This decrease in the incidence of COVID-19–associated dermatoses could be because of the lower pathogenicity of the o variant,³ a lower tropism for the skin, and variations in SARS-CoV-2 antigenicity that would induce a different immunologic response, combined with an increasingly stronger herd immunity compared to the first pandemic waves achieved through vaccination and spontaneous infections in the population. Additional reasons may include different baseline characteristics in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 (regarding comorbidities, disease severity, and received treatments), and the possibility that some of the initially reported COVID-19–associated skin manifestations could have been produced by different etiologic agents.⁴⁸ In the last 2 years, COVID-19–related skin manifestations have been reported mainly as adverse events to COVID-19 vaccination.

CUTANEOUS ADVERSE EFFECTS OF DRUGS USED TO TREAT COVID-19

Prior to the advent of vaccines and specific treatments for SARS-CoV-2, various drugs were used—namely hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, and tocilizumab—that did not prove efficacious and caused diverse adverse effects, including cutaneous eruptions such as urticaria, maculopapular eruptions, erythema multiforme or Stevens-Johnson syndrome, vasculitis, longitudinal melanonychia, and acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis.^49,50 Nirmatrelvir 150 mg–ritonavir 100 mg, which was authorized for emergency use by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of COVID-19, is a viral protease inhibitor blocking the replication of the virus. Ritonavir can induce pruritus, maculopapular rash, acne, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, and toxic epidermal necrolysis; of note, these effects have been observed following administration of ritonavir for treatment of HIV at higher daily doses and for much longer periods of time compared with treatment of COVID-19 (600–1200 mg vs 200 mg/d, respectively). These cutaneous drug side effects are clinically similar to the manifestations caused either directly or indirectly by SARS-CoV-2 infection; therefore, it may be difficult to differentiate them.

DERMATOSES DUE TO PROTECTIVE DEVICES

Dermatoses due to personal protective equipment such as masks or face shields affected the general population and mostly health care professionals⁵¹; 54.4% of 879 health care professionals in one study reported such events.⁵² These dermatoses mainly include contact dermatitis of the face (nose, forehead, and cheeks) of irritant or allergic nature (eg, from preservatives releasing formaldehyde contained in masks and protective goggles). They manifest with skin dryness; desquamation; maceration; fissures; or erosions or ulcerations of the cheeks, forehead, and nose. Cases of pressure urticaria also have been reported. Irritant dermatitis induced by the frequent use of disinfectants (eg, soaps, hydroalcoholic sanitizing gels) also can affect the hands. Allergic hand dermatitis can be caused by medical gloves.

The term maskne (or mask acne) refers to a variety of mechanical acne due to the prolonged use of surgical masks (>4 hours per day for ≥6 weeks); it includes cases of de novo acne and cases of pre-existing acne aggravated by wearing a mask. Maskne is characterized by acne lesions located on the facial area covered by the mask (Figure 6). It is caused by follicular occlusion; increased sebum secretion; mechanical stress (pressure, friction); and dysbiosis of the microbiome induced by changes in heat, pH, and humidity. Preventive measures include application of noncomedogenic moisturizers or gauze before wearing the mask as well as facial cleansing with appropriate nonalcoholic products. Similar to acne, rosacea often is aggravated by prolonged wearing of surgical masks (mask rosacea).^53,54

DERMATOSES REVEALED OR AGGRAVATED BY COVID-19

Exacerbation of various skin diseases has been reported after infection with SARS-CoV-2.⁵⁵ Psoriasis and acrodermatitis continua of Hallopeau,⁵⁶ which may progress into generalized, pustular, or erythrodermic forms,⁵⁷ have been reported; the role of hydroxychloroquine and oral corticosteroids used for the treatment of COVID-19 has been suspected.⁵⁷ Atopic dermatitis patients—26% to 43%—have experienced worsening of their disease after symptomatic COVID-19 infection.⁵⁸ The incidence of herpesvirus infections, including herpes zoster, increased during the pandemic.⁵⁹ Alopecia areata relapses occurred in 42.5% of 392 patients with preexisting disease within 2 months of COVID-19 onset in one study,⁶⁰ possibly favored by the psychological stress; however, some studies have not confirmed the aggravating role of COVID-19 on alopecia areata.⁶¹ Lupus erythematosus, which may relapse in the form of Rowell syndrome,⁶² and livedoid vasculopathy⁶³ also have been reported following COVID-19 infection.

SKIN MANIFESTATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH COVID-19 VACCINES

In parallel with the rapid spread of COVID-19 vaccination,⁴ an increasing number of skin manifestations has been observed following vaccination; these dermatoses now are more frequently reported than those related to natural SARS-CoV-2 infection.^64-70 Vaccine-induced skin manifestations have a reported incidence of approximately 4% and show a female predominance.⁶⁵ Most of them (79%) have been reported in association with messenger RNA (mRNA)–based vaccines, which have been the most widely used; however, the frequency of side effects would be lower after mRNA vaccines than after inactivated virus-based vaccines. Eighteen percent occurred after the adenoviral vector vaccine, and 3% after the inactivated virus vaccine.⁷⁰ Fifty-nine percent were observed after the first dose. They are clinically polymorphous and generally benign, regressing spontaneously after a few days, and they should not constitute a contraindication to vaccination.Interestingly, many skin manifestations are similar to those associated with natural SARS-CoV-2 infection; however, their frequency and severity does not seem to depend on whether the patients had developed skin reactions during prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. These reactions have been classified into several types:

• Immediate local reactions at the injection site: pain, erythema, or edema represent the vast majority (96%) of reactions to vaccines. They appear within 7 days after vaccination (average, 1 day), slightly more frequently (59%) after the first dose. They concern mostly young patients and are benign, regressing in 2 to 3 days.⁷⁰
 

• Delayed local reactions: characterized by pain or pruritus, erythema, and skin induration mimicking cellulitis (COVID arm) and represent 1.7% of postvaccination reactions. They correspond to a delayed hypersensitivity reaction and appear approximately 7 days after vaccination, most often after the first vaccine dose (75% of cases), which is almost invariably mRNA based.⁷⁰

• Urticarial reactions corresponding to an immediate (type 1) hypersensitivity reaction: constitute 1% of postvaccination reactions, probably due to an allergy to vaccine ingredients. They appear on average 1 day after vaccination, almost always with mRNA vaccines.⁷⁰

• Angioedema: characterized by mucosal or subcutaneous edema and constitutes 0.5% of postvaccination reactions. It is a potentially serious reaction that appears on average 12 hours after vaccination, always with an mRNA-based vaccine.⁷⁰

• Morbilliform rash: represents delayed hypersensitivity reactions (0.1% of postvaccination reactions) that appear mostly after the first dose (72%), on average 3 days after vaccination, always with an mRNA-based vaccine.⁷⁰

• Herpes zoster: usually develops after the first vaccine dose in elderly patients (69% of cases) on average 4 days after vaccination and constitutes 0.1% of postvaccination reactions.⁷¹

• Bullous diseases: mainly bullous pemphigoid (90%) and more rarely pemphigus (5%) or bullous erythema pigmentosum (5%). They appear in elderly patients on average 7 days after vaccination and constitute 0.04% of postvaccination reactions.⁷²

• Chilblainlike lesions: several such cases have been reported so far⁷³; they constitute 0.03% of postvaccination reactions.⁷⁰ Clinically, they are similar to those associated with natural COVID-19; they appear mostly after the first dose (64%), on average 5 days after vaccination with the mRNA or adenovirus vaccine, and show a female predominance. The appearance of these lesions in vaccinated patients, who are a priori not carriers of the virus, strongly suggests that CBLLs are due to the immune reaction against SARS-CoV-2 rather than to a direct effect of this virus on the skin, which also is a likely scenario with regards to other skin manifestations seen during the successive COVID-19 epidemic waves.^73-75

• Reactions to hyaluronic acid–containing cosmetic fillers: erythema, edema, and potentially painful induration at the filler injection sites. They constitute 0.04% of postvaccination skin reactions and appear 24 hours after vaccination with mRNA-based vaccines, equally after the first or second dose.⁷⁶

• Pityriasis rosea–like rash: most occur after the second dose of mRNA-based vaccines (0.023% of postvaccination skin reactions).⁷⁰

• Severe reactions: these include acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis⁷⁷ and Stevens-Johnson syndrome.⁷⁸ One case of each has been reported after the adenoviral vector vaccine 3 days after vaccination.

Other more rarely observed manifestations include reactivation/aggravation or de novo appearance of inflammatory dermatoses such as psoriasis,^79,80 leukocytoclastic vasculitis,^81,82 lymphocytic⁸³ or urticarial⁸⁴ vasculitis, Sweet syndrome,⁸⁵ lupus erythematosus, dermatomyositis,^86,87 alopecia,^37,88 infection with Trichophyton rubrum,⁸⁹ Grover disease,⁹⁰ and lymphomatoid reactions (such as recurrences of cutaneous T-cell lymphomas [CD30⁺], and de novo development of lymphomatoid papulosis).⁹¹

FINAL THOUGHTS

COVID-19 is associated with several skin manifestations, even though the causative role of SARS-CoV-2 has remained elusive. These dermatoses are highly polymorphous, mostly benign, and usually spontaneously regressive, but some of them reflect severe infection. They mostly were described during the first pandemic waves, reported in several national and international registries, which allowed for their morphological classification. Currently, cutaneous adverse effects of vaccines are the most frequently reported dermatoses associated with SARS-CoV-2, and it is likely that they will continue to be observed while COVID-19 vaccination lasts. Hopefully the end of the COVID-19 pandemic is near. In January 2023, the International Health Regulations Emergency Committee of the World Health Organization acknowledged that the COVID-19 pandemic may be approaching an inflexion point, and even though the event continues to constitute a public health emergency of international concern, the higher levels of population immunity achieved globally through infection and/or vaccination may limit the impact of SARS-CoV-2 on morbidity and mortality. However, there is little doubt that this virus will remain a permanently established pathogen in humans and animals for the foreseeable future.⁹² Therefore, physicians—especially dermatologists—should be aware of the various skin manifestations associated with COVID-19 so they can more efficiently manage their patients.

COVID-19 is a potentially severe systemic disease caused by SARS-CoV-2. SARS-CoV and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS-CoV) caused fatal epidemics in Asia in 2002 to 2003 and in the Arabian Peninsula in 2012, respectively. In 2019, SARS-CoV-2 was detected in patients with severe, sometimes fatal pneumonia of previously unknown origin; it rapidly spread around the world, and the World Health Organization declared the disease a pandemic on March 11, 2020. SARS-CoV-2 is a β-coronavirus that is genetically related to the bat coronavirus and SARS-CoV; it is a single-stranded RNA virus of which several variants and subvariants exist. The SARS-CoV-2 viral particles bind via their surface spike protein (S protein) to the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptor present on the membrane of several cell types, including epidermal and adnexal keratinocytes.^1,2 The α and δ variants, predominant from 2020 to 2021, mainly affected the lower respiratory tract and caused severe, potentially fatal pneumonia, especially in patients older than 65 years and/or with comorbidities, such as obesity, hypertension, diabetes, and (iatrogenic) immunosuppression. The ο variant, which appeared in late 2021, is more contagious than the initial variants, but it causes a less severe disease preferentially affecting the upper respiratory airways.³ As of April 5, 2023, more than 762,000,000 confirmed cases of COVID-19 have been recorded worldwide, causing more than 6,800,000 deaths.⁴

Early studies from China describing the symptoms of COVID-19 reported a low frequency of skin manifestations (0.2%), probably because they were focused on the most severe disease symptoms.⁵ Subsequently, when COVID-19 spread to the rest of the world, an increasing number of skin manifestations were reported in association with the disease. After the first publication from northern Italy in spring 2020, which was specifically devoted to skin manifestations of COVID-19,⁶ an explosive number of publications reported a large number of skin manifestations, and national registries were established in several countries to record these manifestations, such as the American Academy of Dermatology and the International League of Dermatological Societies registry,^7,8 the COVIDSKIN registry of the French Dermatology Society,⁹ and the Italian registry.¹⁰ Highlighting the unprecedented number of scientific articles published on this new disease, a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE search using the terms SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19, on April 6, 2023, revealed 351,596 articles; that is more than 300 articles published every day in this database alone, with a large number of them concerning the skin.

SKIN DISEASSES ASSOCIATED WITH COVID-19

There are several types of COVID-19–related skin manifestations, depending on the circumstances of onset and the evolution of the pandemic.

Skin Manifestations Associated With SARS-CoV-2 Infection

The estimated incidence varies greatly according to the published series of patients, possibly depending on the geographic location. The estimated incidence seems lower in Asian countries, such as China (0.2%)⁵ and Japan (0.56%),¹¹ compared with Europe (up to 20%).⁶ Skin manifestations associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection affect individuals of all ages, slightly more females, and are clinically polymorphous; some of them are associated with the severity of the infection.¹² They may precede, accompany, or appear after the symptoms of COVID-19, most often within a month of the infection, of which they rarely are the only manifestation; however, their precise relationship to SARS-CoV-2 is not always well known. They have been classified according to their clinical presentation into several forms.^13-15

Morbilliform Maculopapular Eruption—Representing 16% to 53% of skin manifestations, morbilliform and maculopapular eruptions usually appear within 15 days of infection; they manifest with more or less confluent erythematous macules that may be hemorrhagic/petechial, and usually are asymptomatic and rarely pruritic. The rash mainly affects the trunk and limbs, sparing the face, palmoplantar regions, and mucous membranes; it appears concomitantly with or a few days after the first symptoms of COVID-19 (eg, fever, respiratory symptoms), regresses within a few days, and does not appear to be associated with disease severity. The distinction from maculopapular drug eruptions may be subtle. Histologically, the rash manifests with a spongiform dermatitis (ie, variable parakeratosis; spongiosis; and a mixed dermal perivascular infiltrate of lymphocytes, eosinophils and histiocytes, depending on the lesion age)(Figure 1). The etiopathogenesis is unknown; it may involve immune complexes to SARS-CoV-2 deposited on skin vessels. Treatment is not mandatory; if necessary, local or systemic corticosteroids may be used.

Vesicular (Pseudovaricella) Rash—This rash accounts for 11% to 18% of all skin manifestations and usually appears within 15 days of COVID-19 onset. It manifests with small monomorphous or varicellalike (pseudopolymorphic) vesicles appearing on the trunk, usually in young patients. The vesicles may be herpetiform, hemorrhagic, or pruritic, and appear before or within 3 days of the onset of mild COVID-19 symptoms; they regress within a few days without scarring. Histologically, the lesions show basal cell vacuolization; multinucleated, dyskeratotic/apoptotic or ballooning/acantholytic epidermal keratinocytes; reticular degeneration of the epidermis; intraepidermal vesicles sometimes resembling herpetic vesicular infections or Grover disease; and mild dermal inflammation. There is no specific treatment.

Urticaria—Urticarial rash, or urticaria, represents 5% to 16% of skin manifestations; usually appears within 15 days of disease onset; and manifests with pruritic, migratory, edematous papules appearing mainly on the trunk and occasionally the face and limbs. The urticarial rash tends to be associated with more severe forms of the disease and regresses within a week, responding to antihistamines. Of note, clinically similar rashes can be caused by drugs. Histologically, the lesions show dermal edema and a mild perivascular lymphocytic infiltrate, sometimes admixed with eosinophils.

Chilblainlike Lesions—Chilblainlike lesions (CBLLs) account for 19% of skin manifestations associated with COVID-19¹³ and present as erythematous-purplish, edematous lesions that can be mildly pruritic or painful, appearing on the toes—COVID toes—and more rarely the fingers (Figure 2). They were seen epidemically during the first pandemic wave (2020 lockdown) in several countries, and clinically are very similar to, if not indistinguishable from, idiopathic chilblains, but are not necessarily associated with cold exposure. They appear in young, generally healthy patients or those with mild COVID-19 symptoms 2 to 4 weeks after symptom onset. They regress spontaneously or under local corticosteroid treatment within a few days or weeks. Histologically, CBLLs are indistinguishable from chilblains of other origins, namely idiopathic (seasonal) ones. They manifest with necrosis of epidermal keratinocytes; dermal edema that may be severe, leading to the development of subepidermal pseudobullae; a rather dense perivascular and perieccrine gland lymphocytic infiltrate; and sometimes with vascular lesions (eg, edema of endothelial cells, microthromboses of dermal capillaries and venules, fibrinoid deposits within the wall of dermal venules)(Figure 3).^16-18 Most patients (>80%) with CBLLs have negative serologic or polymerase chain reaction tests for SARS-CoV-2,¹⁹ which generated a lively debate about the role of SARS-CoV-2 in the genesis of CBLLs. According to some authors, SARS-CoV-2 plays no direct role, and CBLLs would occur in young people who sit or walk barefoot on cold floors at home during confinement.^20-23 Remarkably, CBLLs appeared in patients with no history of chilblains during a season that was not particularly cold, namely in France or in southern California, where their incidence was much higher compared to the same time period of prior years. Some reports have supported a direct role for the virus based on questionable observations of the virus within skin lesions (eg, sweat glands, endothelial cells) by immunohistochemistry, electron microscopy, and/or in situ hybridization.^17,24,25 A more satisfactory hypothesis would involve the role of a strong innate immunity leading to elimination of the virus before the development of specific antibodies via the increased production of type 1 interferon (IFN-1); this would affect the vessels, causing CBLLs. This mechanism would be similar to the one observed in some interferonopathies (eg, Aicardi-Goutières syndrome), also characterized by IFN-1 hypersecretion and chilblains.^26-29 According to this hypothesis, CBLLs should be considered a paraviral rash similar to other skin manifestations associated with COVID-19.³⁰

Acro-ischemia—Acro-ischemia livedoid lesions account for 1% to 6% of skin manifestations and comprise lesions of livedo (either reticulated or racemosa); necrotic acral bullae; and gangrenous necrosis of the extremities, especially the toes. The livedoid lesions most often appear within 15 days of COVID-19 symptom onset, and the purpuric lesions somewhat later (2–4 weeks); they mainly affect adult patients, last about 10 days, and are the hallmark of severe infection, presumably related to microthromboses of the cutaneous capillaries (endothelial dysfunction, prothrombotic state, elevated D-dimers). Histologically, they show capillary thrombosis and dermoepidermal necrosis (Figure 4).

Other Reported Polymorphic or Atypical Rashes—Erythema multiforme–like eruptions may appear before other COVID-19 symptoms and manifest as reddish-purple, nearly symmetric, diffuse, occasionally targetoid bullous or necrotic macules. The eruptions mainly affect adults and most often are seen on the palms, elbows, knees, and sometimes the mucous membranes. The rash regresses in 1 to 3 weeks without scarring and represents a delayed cutaneous hypersensitivity reaction. Histologically, the lesions show vacuolization of basal epidermal keratinocytes, keratinocyte necrosis, dermoepidermal detachment, a variably dense dermal T-lymphocytic infiltrate, and red blood cell extravasation (Figure 5).

Leukocytoclastic vasculitis may be generalized or localized. It manifests clinically by petechial/purpuric maculopapules, especially on the legs, mainly in elderly patients with COVID-19. Histologically, the lesions show necrotizing changes of dermal postcapillary venules, neutrophilic perivascular inflammation, red blood cell extravasation, and occasionally vascular IgA deposits by direct immunofluorescence examination. The course usually is benign.

The incidence of pityriasis rosea and of clinically similar rashes (referred to as “pityriasis rosea–like”) increased 5-fold during the COVID-19 pandemic.^31,32 These dermatoses manifest with erythematous, scaly, circinate plaques, typically with an initial herald lesion followed a few days later by smaller erythematous macules. Histologically, the lesions comprise a spongiform dermatitis with intraepidermal exocytosis of red blood cells and a mild to moderate dermal lymphocytic infiltrate.

Erythrodysesthesia, or hand-foot syndrome, manifests with edematous erythema and palmoplantar desquamation accompanied by a burning sensation or pain. This syndrome is known as an adverse effect of some chemotherapies because of the associated drug toxicity and sweat gland inflammation; it was observed in 40% of 666 COVID-19–positive patients with mild to moderate pneumonitis.³³

“COVID nose” is a rare cutaneous manifestation characterized by nasal pigmentation comprising multiple coalescent frecklelike macules on the tip and wings of the nose and sometimes the malar areas. These lesions predominantly appear in women aged 25 to 65 years and show on average 23 days after onset of COVID-19, which is usually mild. This pigmentation is similar to pigmentary changes after infection with chikungunya; it can be treated with depigmenting products such as azelaic acid and hydroquinone cream with sunscreen use, and it regresses in 2 to 4 months.³⁴

Telogen effluvium (excessive and temporary shedding of normal telogen club hairs of the entire scalp due to the disturbance of the hair cycle) is reportedly frequent in patients (48%) 1 month after COVID-19 infection, but it may appear later (after 12 weeks).³⁵ Alopecia also is frequently reported during long (or postacute) COVID-19 (ie, the symptomatic disease phase past the acute 4 weeks’ stage of the infection) and shows a female predominance³⁶; it likely represents the telogen effluvium seen 90 days after a severe illness. Trichodynia (pruritus, burning, pain, or paresthesia of the scalp) also is reportedly common (developing in more than 58% of patients) and is associated with telogen effluvium in 44% of cases. Several cases of alopecia areata (AA) triggered or aggravated by COVID-19 also have been reported^37,38; they could be explained by the “cytokine storm” triggered by the infection, involving T and B lymphocytes; plasmacytoid dendritic cells; natural killer cells with oversecretion of IL-6, IL-4, tumor necrosis factor α, and IFN type I; and a cytotoxic reaction associated with loss of the immune privilege of hair follicles.

Nail Manifestations

The red half-moon nail sign is an asymptomatic purplish-red band around the distal margin of the lunula that affects some adult patients with COVID-19.³⁹ It appears shortly after onset of symptoms, likely the manifestation of vascular inflammation in the nail bed, and regresses slowly after approximately 1 week.⁴⁰ Beau lines are transverse grooves in the nail plate due to the temporary arrest of the proximal nail matrix growth accompanying systemic illnesses; they appear approximately 2 to 3 weeks after the onset of COVID-19.⁴¹ Furthermore, nail alterations can be caused by drugs used to treat COVID-19, such as longitudinal melanonychia due to treatment with hydroxychloroquine or fluorescence of the lunula or nail plate due to treatment with favipiravir.⁴²

Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome

Multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS) is clinically similar to Kawasaki disease; it typically affects children⁴³ and more rarely adults with COVID-19. It manifests with fever, weakness, and biological inflammation and also frequently with skin lesions (72%), which are polymorphous and include morbilliform rash (27%); urticaria (24%); periorbital edema (24%); nonspecific erythema (21.2%); retiform purpura (18%); targetoid lesions (15%); malar rash (15.2%); and periareolar erythema (6%).⁴⁴ Compared to Kawasaki disease, MIS affects slightly older children (mean age, 8.5 vs 3 years) and more frequently includes cardiac and gastrointestinal manifestations; the mortality rate also is slightly higher (2% vs 0.17%).⁴⁵

Confirmed COVID-19 Infection

At the beginning of the pandemic, skin manifestations were reported in patients who were suspected of having COVID-19 but did not always have biological confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 infection due to the unavailability of diagnostic tests or the physical impossibility of testing. However, subsequent studies have confirmed that most of these dermatoses were indeed associated with COVID-19 infection.^9,46 For example, a study of 655 patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection reported maculopapular (38%), vascular (22%), urticarial (15%), and vesicular (15%) rashes; erythema multiforme or Stevens-Johnson–like syndrome (3%, often related to the use of hydroxychloroquine); generalized pruritus (1%); and MIS (0.5%). The study confirmed that CBLLs were mostly seen in young patients with mild disease, whereas livedo (fixed rash) and retiform purpura occurred in older patients with a guarded prognosis.⁴⁶

Remarkably, most dermatoses associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection were reported during the initial waves of the pandemic, which were due to the α and δ viral variants. These manifestations were reported more rarely when the ο variant was predominant, even though most patients (63%) who developed CBLLs in the first wave also developed them during the second pandemic wave.⁴⁷ This decrease in the incidence of COVID-19–associated dermatoses could be because of the lower pathogenicity of the o variant,³ a lower tropism for the skin, and variations in SARS-CoV-2 antigenicity that would induce a different immunologic response, combined with an increasingly stronger herd immunity compared to the first pandemic waves achieved through vaccination and spontaneous infections in the population. Additional reasons may include different baseline characteristics in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 (regarding comorbidities, disease severity, and received treatments), and the possibility that some of the initially reported COVID-19–associated skin manifestations could have been produced by different etiologic agents.⁴⁸ In the last 2 years, COVID-19–related skin manifestations have been reported mainly as adverse events to COVID-19 vaccination.

CUTANEOUS ADVERSE EFFECTS OF DRUGS USED TO TREAT COVID-19

Prior to the advent of vaccines and specific treatments for SARS-CoV-2, various drugs were used—namely hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, and tocilizumab—that did not prove efficacious and caused diverse adverse effects, including cutaneous eruptions such as urticaria, maculopapular eruptions, erythema multiforme or Stevens-Johnson syndrome, vasculitis, longitudinal melanonychia, and acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis.^49,50 Nirmatrelvir 150 mg–ritonavir 100 mg, which was authorized for emergency use by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of COVID-19, is a viral protease inhibitor blocking the replication of the virus. Ritonavir can induce pruritus, maculopapular rash, acne, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, and toxic epidermal necrolysis; of note, these effects have been observed following administration of ritonavir for treatment of HIV at higher daily doses and for much longer periods of time compared with treatment of COVID-19 (600–1200 mg vs 200 mg/d, respectively). These cutaneous drug side effects are clinically similar to the manifestations caused either directly or indirectly by SARS-CoV-2 infection; therefore, it may be difficult to differentiate them.

DERMATOSES DUE TO PROTECTIVE DEVICES

Dermatoses due to personal protective equipment such as masks or face shields affected the general population and mostly health care professionals⁵¹; 54.4% of 879 health care professionals in one study reported such events.⁵² These dermatoses mainly include contact dermatitis of the face (nose, forehead, and cheeks) of irritant or allergic nature (eg, from preservatives releasing formaldehyde contained in masks and protective goggles). They manifest with skin dryness; desquamation; maceration; fissures; or erosions or ulcerations of the cheeks, forehead, and nose. Cases of pressure urticaria also have been reported. Irritant dermatitis induced by the frequent use of disinfectants (eg, soaps, hydroalcoholic sanitizing gels) also can affect the hands. Allergic hand dermatitis can be caused by medical gloves.

The term maskne (or mask acne) refers to a variety of mechanical acne due to the prolonged use of surgical masks (>4 hours per day for ≥6 weeks); it includes cases of de novo acne and cases of pre-existing acne aggravated by wearing a mask. Maskne is characterized by acne lesions located on the facial area covered by the mask (Figure 6). It is caused by follicular occlusion; increased sebum secretion; mechanical stress (pressure, friction); and dysbiosis of the microbiome induced by changes in heat, pH, and humidity. Preventive measures include application of noncomedogenic moisturizers or gauze before wearing the mask as well as facial cleansing with appropriate nonalcoholic products. Similar to acne, rosacea often is aggravated by prolonged wearing of surgical masks (mask rosacea).^53,54

DERMATOSES REVEALED OR AGGRAVATED BY COVID-19

Exacerbation of various skin diseases has been reported after infection with SARS-CoV-2.⁵⁵ Psoriasis and acrodermatitis continua of Hallopeau,⁵⁶ which may progress into generalized, pustular, or erythrodermic forms,⁵⁷ have been reported; the role of hydroxychloroquine and oral corticosteroids used for the treatment of COVID-19 has been suspected.⁵⁷ Atopic dermatitis patients—26% to 43%—have experienced worsening of their disease after symptomatic COVID-19 infection.⁵⁸ The incidence of herpesvirus infections, including herpes zoster, increased during the pandemic.⁵⁹ Alopecia areata relapses occurred in 42.5% of 392 patients with preexisting disease within 2 months of COVID-19 onset in one study,⁶⁰ possibly favored by the psychological stress; however, some studies have not confirmed the aggravating role of COVID-19 on alopecia areata.⁶¹ Lupus erythematosus, which may relapse in the form of Rowell syndrome,⁶² and livedoid vasculopathy⁶³ also have been reported following COVID-19 infection.

SKIN MANIFESTATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH COVID-19 VACCINES

In parallel with the rapid spread of COVID-19 vaccination,⁴ an increasing number of skin manifestations has been observed following vaccination; these dermatoses now are more frequently reported than those related to natural SARS-CoV-2 infection.^64-70 Vaccine-induced skin manifestations have a reported incidence of approximately 4% and show a female predominance.⁶⁵ Most of them (79%) have been reported in association with messenger RNA (mRNA)–based vaccines, which have been the most widely used; however, the frequency of side effects would be lower after mRNA vaccines than after inactivated virus-based vaccines. Eighteen percent occurred after the adenoviral vector vaccine, and 3% after the inactivated virus vaccine.⁷⁰ Fifty-nine percent were observed after the first dose. They are clinically polymorphous and generally benign, regressing spontaneously after a few days, and they should not constitute a contraindication to vaccination.Interestingly, many skin manifestations are similar to those associated with natural SARS-CoV-2 infection; however, their frequency and severity does not seem to depend on whether the patients had developed skin reactions during prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. These reactions have been classified into several types:

• Immediate local reactions at the injection site: pain, erythema, or edema represent the vast majority (96%) of reactions to vaccines. They appear within 7 days after vaccination (average, 1 day), slightly more frequently (59%) after the first dose. They concern mostly young patients and are benign, regressing in 2 to 3 days.⁷⁰
 

• Delayed local reactions: characterized by pain or pruritus, erythema, and skin induration mimicking cellulitis (COVID arm) and represent 1.7% of postvaccination reactions. They correspond to a delayed hypersensitivity reaction and appear approximately 7 days after vaccination, most often after the first vaccine dose (75% of cases), which is almost invariably mRNA based.⁷⁰

• Urticarial reactions corresponding to an immediate (type 1) hypersensitivity reaction: constitute 1% of postvaccination reactions, probably due to an allergy to vaccine ingredients. They appear on average 1 day after vaccination, almost always with mRNA vaccines.⁷⁰

• Angioedema: characterized by mucosal or subcutaneous edema and constitutes 0.5% of postvaccination reactions. It is a potentially serious reaction that appears on average 12 hours after vaccination, always with an mRNA-based vaccine.⁷⁰

• Morbilliform rash: represents delayed hypersensitivity reactions (0.1% of postvaccination reactions) that appear mostly after the first dose (72%), on average 3 days after vaccination, always with an mRNA-based vaccine.⁷⁰

• Herpes zoster: usually develops after the first vaccine dose in elderly patients (69% of cases) on average 4 days after vaccination and constitutes 0.1% of postvaccination reactions.⁷¹

• Bullous diseases: mainly bullous pemphigoid (90%) and more rarely pemphigus (5%) or bullous erythema pigmentosum (5%). They appear in elderly patients on average 7 days after vaccination and constitute 0.04% of postvaccination reactions.⁷²

• Chilblainlike lesions: several such cases have been reported so far⁷³; they constitute 0.03% of postvaccination reactions.⁷⁰ Clinically, they are similar to those associated with natural COVID-19; they appear mostly after the first dose (64%), on average 5 days after vaccination with the mRNA or adenovirus vaccine, and show a female predominance. The appearance of these lesions in vaccinated patients, who are a priori not carriers of the virus, strongly suggests that CBLLs are due to the immune reaction against SARS-CoV-2 rather than to a direct effect of this virus on the skin, which also is a likely scenario with regards to other skin manifestations seen during the successive COVID-19 epidemic waves.^73-75

• Reactions to hyaluronic acid–containing cosmetic fillers: erythema, edema, and potentially painful induration at the filler injection sites. They constitute 0.04% of postvaccination skin reactions and appear 24 hours after vaccination with mRNA-based vaccines, equally after the first or second dose.⁷⁶

• Pityriasis rosea–like rash: most occur after the second dose of mRNA-based vaccines (0.023% of postvaccination skin reactions).⁷⁰

• Severe reactions: these include acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis⁷⁷ and Stevens-Johnson syndrome.⁷⁸ One case of each has been reported after the adenoviral vector vaccine 3 days after vaccination.

Other more rarely observed manifestations include reactivation/aggravation or de novo appearance of inflammatory dermatoses such as psoriasis,^79,80 leukocytoclastic vasculitis,^81,82 lymphocytic⁸³ or urticarial⁸⁴ vasculitis, Sweet syndrome,⁸⁵ lupus erythematosus, dermatomyositis,^86,87 alopecia,^37,88 infection with Trichophyton rubrum,⁸⁹ Grover disease,⁹⁰ and lymphomatoid reactions (such as recurrences of cutaneous T-cell lymphomas [CD30⁺], and de novo development of lymphomatoid papulosis).⁹¹

FINAL THOUGHTS

COVID-19 is associated with several skin manifestations, even though the causative role of SARS-CoV-2 has remained elusive. These dermatoses are highly polymorphous, mostly benign, and usually spontaneously regressive, but some of them reflect severe infection. They mostly were described during the first pandemic waves, reported in several national and international registries, which allowed for their morphological classification. Currently, cutaneous adverse effects of vaccines are the most frequently reported dermatoses associated with SARS-CoV-2, and it is likely that they will continue to be observed while COVID-19 vaccination lasts. Hopefully the end of the COVID-19 pandemic is near. In January 2023, the International Health Regulations Emergency Committee of the World Health Organization acknowledged that the COVID-19 pandemic may be approaching an inflexion point, and even though the event continues to constitute a public health emergency of international concern, the higher levels of population immunity achieved globally through infection and/or vaccination may limit the impact of SARS-CoV-2 on morbidity and mortality. However, there is little doubt that this virus will remain a permanently established pathogen in humans and animals for the foreseeable future.⁹² Therefore, physicians—especially dermatologists—should be aware of the various skin manifestations associated with COVID-19 so they can more efficiently manage their patients.

COVID-19 is a potentially severe systemic disease caused by SARS-CoV-2. SARS-CoV and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS-CoV) caused fatal epidemics in Asia in 2002 to 2003 and in the Arabian Peninsula in 2012, respectively. In 2019, SARS-CoV-2 was detected in patients with severe, sometimes fatal pneumonia of previously unknown origin; it rapidly spread around the world, and the World Health Organization declared the disease a pandemic on March 11, 2020. SARS-CoV-2 is a β-coronavirus that is genetically related to the bat coronavirus and SARS-CoV; it is a single-stranded RNA virus of which several variants and subvariants exist. The SARS-CoV-2 viral particles bind via their surface spike protein (S protein) to the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptor present on the membrane of several cell types, including epidermal and adnexal keratinocytes.^1,2 The α and δ variants, predominant from 2020 to 2021, mainly affected the lower respiratory tract and caused severe, potentially fatal pneumonia, especially in patients older than 65 years and/or with comorbidities, such as obesity, hypertension, diabetes, and (iatrogenic) immunosuppression. The ο variant, which appeared in late 2021, is more contagious than the initial variants, but it causes a less severe disease preferentially affecting the upper respiratory airways.³ As of April 5, 2023, more than 762,000,000 confirmed cases of COVID-19 have been recorded worldwide, causing more than 6,800,000 deaths.⁴

Early studies from China describing the symptoms of COVID-19 reported a low frequency of skin manifestations (0.2%), probably because they were focused on the most severe disease symptoms.⁵ Subsequently, when COVID-19 spread to the rest of the world, an increasing number of skin manifestations were reported in association with the disease. After the first publication from northern Italy in spring 2020, which was specifically devoted to skin manifestations of COVID-19,⁶ an explosive number of publications reported a large number of skin manifestations, and national registries were established in several countries to record these manifestations, such as the American Academy of Dermatology and the International League of Dermatological Societies registry,^7,8 the COVIDSKIN registry of the French Dermatology Society,⁹ and the Italian registry.¹⁰ Highlighting the unprecedented number of scientific articles published on this new disease, a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE search using the terms SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19, on April 6, 2023, revealed 351,596 articles; that is more than 300 articles published every day in this database alone, with a large number of them concerning the skin.

SKIN DISEASSES ASSOCIATED WITH COVID-19

There are several types of COVID-19–related skin manifestations, depending on the circumstances of onset and the evolution of the pandemic.

Skin Manifestations Associated With SARS-CoV-2 Infection

The estimated incidence varies greatly according to the published series of patients, possibly depending on the geographic location. The estimated incidence seems lower in Asian countries, such as China (0.2%)⁵ and Japan (0.56%),¹¹ compared with Europe (up to 20%).⁶ Skin manifestations associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection affect individuals of all ages, slightly more females, and are clinically polymorphous; some of them are associated with the severity of the infection.¹² They may precede, accompany, or appear after the symptoms of COVID-19, most often within a month of the infection, of which they rarely are the only manifestation; however, their precise relationship to SARS-CoV-2 is not always well known. They have been classified according to their clinical presentation into several forms.^13-15

Morbilliform Maculopapular Eruption—Representing 16% to 53% of skin manifestations, morbilliform and maculopapular eruptions usually appear within 15 days of infection; they manifest with more or less confluent erythematous macules that may be hemorrhagic/petechial, and usually are asymptomatic and rarely pruritic. The rash mainly affects the trunk and limbs, sparing the face, palmoplantar regions, and mucous membranes; it appears concomitantly with or a few days after the first symptoms of COVID-19 (eg, fever, respiratory symptoms), regresses within a few days, and does not appear to be associated with disease severity. The distinction from maculopapular drug eruptions may be subtle. Histologically, the rash manifests with a spongiform dermatitis (ie, variable parakeratosis; spongiosis; and a mixed dermal perivascular infiltrate of lymphocytes, eosinophils and histiocytes, depending on the lesion age)(Figure 1). The etiopathogenesis is unknown; it may involve immune complexes to SARS-CoV-2 deposited on skin vessels. Treatment is not mandatory; if necessary, local or systemic corticosteroids may be used.

Vesicular (Pseudovaricella) Rash—This rash accounts for 11% to 18% of all skin manifestations and usually appears within 15 days of COVID-19 onset. It manifests with small monomorphous or varicellalike (pseudopolymorphic) vesicles appearing on the trunk, usually in young patients. The vesicles may be herpetiform, hemorrhagic, or pruritic, and appear before or within 3 days of the onset of mild COVID-19 symptoms; they regress within a few days without scarring. Histologically, the lesions show basal cell vacuolization; multinucleated, dyskeratotic/apoptotic or ballooning/acantholytic epidermal keratinocytes; reticular degeneration of the epidermis; intraepidermal vesicles sometimes resembling herpetic vesicular infections or Grover disease; and mild dermal inflammation. There is no specific treatment.

Urticaria—Urticarial rash, or urticaria, represents 5% to 16% of skin manifestations; usually appears within 15 days of disease onset; and manifests with pruritic, migratory, edematous papules appearing mainly on the trunk and occasionally the face and limbs. The urticarial rash tends to be associated with more severe forms of the disease and regresses within a week, responding to antihistamines. Of note, clinically similar rashes can be caused by drugs. Histologically, the lesions show dermal edema and a mild perivascular lymphocytic infiltrate, sometimes admixed with eosinophils.

Chilblainlike Lesions—Chilblainlike lesions (CBLLs) account for 19% of skin manifestations associated with COVID-19¹³ and present as erythematous-purplish, edematous lesions that can be mildly pruritic or painful, appearing on the toes—COVID toes—and more rarely the fingers (Figure 2). They were seen epidemically during the first pandemic wave (2020 lockdown) in several countries, and clinically are very similar to, if not indistinguishable from, idiopathic chilblains, but are not necessarily associated with cold exposure. They appear in young, generally healthy patients or those with mild COVID-19 symptoms 2 to 4 weeks after symptom onset. They regress spontaneously or under local corticosteroid treatment within a few days or weeks. Histologically, CBLLs are indistinguishable from chilblains of other origins, namely idiopathic (seasonal) ones. They manifest with necrosis of epidermal keratinocytes; dermal edema that may be severe, leading to the development of subepidermal pseudobullae; a rather dense perivascular and perieccrine gland lymphocytic infiltrate; and sometimes with vascular lesions (eg, edema of endothelial cells, microthromboses of dermal capillaries and venules, fibrinoid deposits within the wall of dermal venules)(Figure 3).^16-18 Most patients (>80%) with CBLLs have negative serologic or polymerase chain reaction tests for SARS-CoV-2,¹⁹ which generated a lively debate about the role of SARS-CoV-2 in the genesis of CBLLs. According to some authors, SARS-CoV-2 plays no direct role, and CBLLs would occur in young people who sit or walk barefoot on cold floors at home during confinement.^20-23 Remarkably, CBLLs appeared in patients with no history of chilblains during a season that was not particularly cold, namely in France or in southern California, where their incidence was much higher compared to the same time period of prior years. Some reports have supported a direct role for the virus based on questionable observations of the virus within skin lesions (eg, sweat glands, endothelial cells) by immunohistochemistry, electron microscopy, and/or in situ hybridization.^17,24,25 A more satisfactory hypothesis would involve the role of a strong innate immunity leading to elimination of the virus before the development of specific antibodies via the increased production of type 1 interferon (IFN-1); this would affect the vessels, causing CBLLs. This mechanism would be similar to the one observed in some interferonopathies (eg, Aicardi-Goutières syndrome), also characterized by IFN-1 hypersecretion and chilblains.^26-29 According to this hypothesis, CBLLs should be considered a paraviral rash similar to other skin manifestations associated with COVID-19.³⁰

Acro-ischemia—Acro-ischemia livedoid lesions account for 1% to 6% of skin manifestations and comprise lesions of livedo (either reticulated or racemosa); necrotic acral bullae; and gangrenous necrosis of the extremities, especially the toes. The livedoid lesions most often appear within 15 days of COVID-19 symptom onset, and the purpuric lesions somewhat later (2–4 weeks); they mainly affect adult patients, last about 10 days, and are the hallmark of severe infection, presumably related to microthromboses of the cutaneous capillaries (endothelial dysfunction, prothrombotic state, elevated D-dimers). Histologically, they show capillary thrombosis and dermoepidermal necrosis (Figure 4).

Other Reported Polymorphic or Atypical Rashes—Erythema multiforme–like eruptions may appear before other COVID-19 symptoms and manifest as reddish-purple, nearly symmetric, diffuse, occasionally targetoid bullous or necrotic macules. The eruptions mainly affect adults and most often are seen on the palms, elbows, knees, and sometimes the mucous membranes. The rash regresses in 1 to 3 weeks without scarring and represents a delayed cutaneous hypersensitivity reaction. Histologically, the lesions show vacuolization of basal epidermal keratinocytes, keratinocyte necrosis, dermoepidermal detachment, a variably dense dermal T-lymphocytic infiltrate, and red blood cell extravasation (Figure 5).

Leukocytoclastic vasculitis may be generalized or localized. It manifests clinically by petechial/purpuric maculopapules, especially on the legs, mainly in elderly patients with COVID-19. Histologically, the lesions show necrotizing changes of dermal postcapillary venules, neutrophilic perivascular inflammation, red blood cell extravasation, and occasionally vascular IgA deposits by direct immunofluorescence examination. The course usually is benign.

The incidence of pityriasis rosea and of clinically similar rashes (referred to as “pityriasis rosea–like”) increased 5-fold during the COVID-19 pandemic.^31,32 These dermatoses manifest with erythematous, scaly, circinate plaques, typically with an initial herald lesion followed a few days later by smaller erythematous macules. Histologically, the lesions comprise a spongiform dermatitis with intraepidermal exocytosis of red blood cells and a mild to moderate dermal lymphocytic infiltrate.

Erythrodysesthesia, or hand-foot syndrome, manifests with edematous erythema and palmoplantar desquamation accompanied by a burning sensation or pain. This syndrome is known as an adverse effect of some chemotherapies because of the associated drug toxicity and sweat gland inflammation; it was observed in 40% of 666 COVID-19–positive patients with mild to moderate pneumonitis.³³

“COVID nose” is a rare cutaneous manifestation characterized by nasal pigmentation comprising multiple coalescent frecklelike macules on the tip and wings of the nose and sometimes the malar areas. These lesions predominantly appear in women aged 25 to 65 years and show on average 23 days after onset of COVID-19, which is usually mild. This pigmentation is similar to pigmentary changes after infection with chikungunya; it can be treated with depigmenting products such as azelaic acid and hydroquinone cream with sunscreen use, and it regresses in 2 to 4 months.³⁴

Telogen effluvium (excessive and temporary shedding of normal telogen club hairs of the entire scalp due to the disturbance of the hair cycle) is reportedly frequent in patients (48%) 1 month after COVID-19 infection, but it may appear later (after 12 weeks).³⁵ Alopecia also is frequently reported during long (or postacute) COVID-19 (ie, the symptomatic disease phase past the acute 4 weeks’ stage of the infection) and shows a female predominance³⁶; it likely represents the telogen effluvium seen 90 days after a severe illness. Trichodynia (pruritus, burning, pain, or paresthesia of the scalp) also is reportedly common (developing in more than 58% of patients) and is associated with telogen effluvium in 44% of cases. Several cases of alopecia areata (AA) triggered or aggravated by COVID-19 also have been reported^37,38; they could be explained by the “cytokine storm” triggered by the infection, involving T and B lymphocytes; plasmacytoid dendritic cells; natural killer cells with oversecretion of IL-6, IL-4, tumor necrosis factor α, and IFN type I; and a cytotoxic reaction associated with loss of the immune privilege of hair follicles.

Nail Manifestations

The red half-moon nail sign is an asymptomatic purplish-red band around the distal margin of the lunula that affects some adult patients with COVID-19.³⁹ It appears shortly after onset of symptoms, likely the manifestation of vascular inflammation in the nail bed, and regresses slowly after approximately 1 week.⁴⁰ Beau lines are transverse grooves in the nail plate due to the temporary arrest of the proximal nail matrix growth accompanying systemic illnesses; they appear approximately 2 to 3 weeks after the onset of COVID-19.⁴¹ Furthermore, nail alterations can be caused by drugs used to treat COVID-19, such as longitudinal melanonychia due to treatment with hydroxychloroquine or fluorescence of the lunula or nail plate due to treatment with favipiravir.⁴²

Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome

Multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS) is clinically similar to Kawasaki disease; it typically affects children⁴³ and more rarely adults with COVID-19. It manifests with fever, weakness, and biological inflammation and also frequently with skin lesions (72%), which are polymorphous and include morbilliform rash (27%); urticaria (24%); periorbital edema (24%); nonspecific erythema (21.2%); retiform purpura (18%); targetoid lesions (15%); malar rash (15.2%); and periareolar erythema (6%).⁴⁴ Compared to Kawasaki disease, MIS affects slightly older children (mean age, 8.5 vs 3 years) and more frequently includes cardiac and gastrointestinal manifestations; the mortality rate also is slightly higher (2% vs 0.17%).⁴⁵

Confirmed COVID-19 Infection

At the beginning of the pandemic, skin manifestations were reported in patients who were suspected of having COVID-19 but did not always have biological confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 infection due to the unavailability of diagnostic tests or the physical impossibility of testing. However, subsequent studies have confirmed that most of these dermatoses were indeed associated with COVID-19 infection.^9,46 For example, a study of 655 patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection reported maculopapular (38%), vascular (22%), urticarial (15%), and vesicular (15%) rashes; erythema multiforme or Stevens-Johnson–like syndrome (3%, often related to the use of hydroxychloroquine); generalized pruritus (1%); and MIS (0.5%). The study confirmed that CBLLs were mostly seen in young patients with mild disease, whereas livedo (fixed rash) and retiform purpura occurred in older patients with a guarded prognosis.⁴⁶

Remarkably, most dermatoses associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection were reported during the initial waves of the pandemic, which were due to the α and δ viral variants. These manifestations were reported more rarely when the ο variant was predominant, even though most patients (63%) who developed CBLLs in the first wave also developed them during the second pandemic wave.⁴⁷ This decrease in the incidence of COVID-19–associated dermatoses could be because of the lower pathogenicity of the o variant,³ a lower tropism for the skin, and variations in SARS-CoV-2 antigenicity that would induce a different immunologic response, combined with an increasingly stronger herd immunity compared to the first pandemic waves achieved through vaccination and spontaneous infections in the population. Additional reasons may include different baseline characteristics in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 (regarding comorbidities, disease severity, and received treatments), and the possibility that some of the initially reported COVID-19–associated skin manifestations could have been produced by different etiologic agents.⁴⁸ In the last 2 years, COVID-19–related skin manifestations have been reported mainly as adverse events to COVID-19 vaccination.

CUTANEOUS ADVERSE EFFECTS OF DRUGS USED TO TREAT COVID-19

Prior to the advent of vaccines and specific treatments for SARS-CoV-2, various drugs were used—namely hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, and tocilizumab—that did not prove efficacious and caused diverse adverse effects, including cutaneous eruptions such as urticaria, maculopapular eruptions, erythema multiforme or Stevens-Johnson syndrome, vasculitis, longitudinal melanonychia, and acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis.^49,50 Nirmatrelvir 150 mg–ritonavir 100 mg, which was authorized for emergency use by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of COVID-19, is a viral protease inhibitor blocking the replication of the virus. Ritonavir can induce pruritus, maculopapular rash, acne, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, and toxic epidermal necrolysis; of note, these effects have been observed following administration of ritonavir for treatment of HIV at higher daily doses and for much longer periods of time compared with treatment of COVID-19 (600–1200 mg vs 200 mg/d, respectively). These cutaneous drug side effects are clinically similar to the manifestations caused either directly or indirectly by SARS-CoV-2 infection; therefore, it may be difficult to differentiate them.

DERMATOSES DUE TO PROTECTIVE DEVICES

Dermatoses due to personal protective equipment such as masks or face shields affected the general population and mostly health care professionals⁵¹; 54.4% of 879 health care professionals in one study reported such events.⁵² These dermatoses mainly include contact dermatitis of the face (nose, forehead, and cheeks) of irritant or allergic nature (eg, from preservatives releasing formaldehyde contained in masks and protective goggles). They manifest with skin dryness; desquamation; maceration; fissures; or erosions or ulcerations of the cheeks, forehead, and nose. Cases of pressure urticaria also have been reported. Irritant dermatitis induced by the frequent use of disinfectants (eg, soaps, hydroalcoholic sanitizing gels) also can affect the hands. Allergic hand dermatitis can be caused by medical gloves.

The term maskne (or mask acne) refers to a variety of mechanical acne due to the prolonged use of surgical masks (>4 hours per day for ≥6 weeks); it includes cases of de novo acne and cases of pre-existing acne aggravated by wearing a mask. Maskne is characterized by acne lesions located on the facial area covered by the mask (Figure 6). It is caused by follicular occlusion; increased sebum secretion; mechanical stress (pressure, friction); and dysbiosis of the microbiome induced by changes in heat, pH, and humidity. Preventive measures include application of noncomedogenic moisturizers or gauze before wearing the mask as well as facial cleansing with appropriate nonalcoholic products. Similar to acne, rosacea often is aggravated by prolonged wearing of surgical masks (mask rosacea).^53,54

DERMATOSES REVEALED OR AGGRAVATED BY COVID-19

Exacerbation of various skin diseases has been reported after infection with SARS-CoV-2.⁵⁵ Psoriasis and acrodermatitis continua of Hallopeau,⁵⁶ which may progress into generalized, pustular, or erythrodermic forms,⁵⁷ have been reported; the role of hydroxychloroquine and oral corticosteroids used for the treatment of COVID-19 has been suspected.⁵⁷ Atopic dermatitis patients—26% to 43%—have experienced worsening of their disease after symptomatic COVID-19 infection.⁵⁸ The incidence of herpesvirus infections, including herpes zoster, increased during the pandemic.⁵⁹ Alopecia areata relapses occurred in 42.5% of 392 patients with preexisting disease within 2 months of COVID-19 onset in one study,⁶⁰ possibly favored by the psychological stress; however, some studies have not confirmed the aggravating role of COVID-19 on alopecia areata.⁶¹ Lupus erythematosus, which may relapse in the form of Rowell syndrome,⁶² and livedoid vasculopathy⁶³ also have been reported following COVID-19 infection.

SKIN MANIFESTATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH COVID-19 VACCINES

In parallel with the rapid spread of COVID-19 vaccination,⁴ an increasing number of skin manifestations has been observed following vaccination; these dermatoses now are more frequently reported than those related to natural SARS-CoV-2 infection.^64-70 Vaccine-induced skin manifestations have a reported incidence of approximately 4% and show a female predominance.⁶⁵ Most of them (79%) have been reported in association with messenger RNA (mRNA)–based vaccines, which have been the most widely used; however, the frequency of side effects would be lower after mRNA vaccines than after inactivated virus-based vaccines. Eighteen percent occurred after the adenoviral vector vaccine, and 3% after the inactivated virus vaccine.⁷⁰ Fifty-nine percent were observed after the first dose. They are clinically polymorphous and generally benign, regressing spontaneously after a few days, and they should not constitute a contraindication to vaccination.Interestingly, many skin manifestations are similar to those associated with natural SARS-CoV-2 infection; however, their frequency and severity does not seem to depend on whether the patients had developed skin reactions during prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. These reactions have been classified into several types:

• Immediate local reactions at the injection site: pain, erythema, or edema represent the vast majority (96%) of reactions to vaccines. They appear within 7 days after vaccination (average, 1 day), slightly more frequently (59%) after the first dose. They concern mostly young patients and are benign, regressing in 2 to 3 days.⁷⁰
 

• Delayed local reactions: characterized by pain or pruritus, erythema, and skin induration mimicking cellulitis (COVID arm) and represent 1.7% of postvaccination reactions. They correspond to a delayed hypersensitivity reaction and appear approximately 7 days after vaccination, most often after the first vaccine dose (75% of cases), which is almost invariably mRNA based.⁷⁰

• Urticarial reactions corresponding to an immediate (type 1) hypersensitivity reaction: constitute 1% of postvaccination reactions, probably due to an allergy to vaccine ingredients. They appear on average 1 day after vaccination, almost always with mRNA vaccines.⁷⁰

• Angioedema: characterized by mucosal or subcutaneous edema and constitutes 0.5% of postvaccination reactions. It is a potentially serious reaction that appears on average 12 hours after vaccination, always with an mRNA-based vaccine.⁷⁰

• Morbilliform rash: represents delayed hypersensitivity reactions (0.1% of postvaccination reactions) that appear mostly after the first dose (72%), on average 3 days after vaccination, always with an mRNA-based vaccine.⁷⁰

• Herpes zoster: usually develops after the first vaccine dose in elderly patients (69% of cases) on average 4 days after vaccination and constitutes 0.1% of postvaccination reactions.⁷¹

• Bullous diseases: mainly bullous pemphigoid (90%) and more rarely pemphigus (5%) or bullous erythema pigmentosum (5%). They appear in elderly patients on average 7 days after vaccination and constitute 0.04% of postvaccination reactions.⁷²

• Chilblainlike lesions: several such cases have been reported so far⁷³; they constitute 0.03% of postvaccination reactions.⁷⁰ Clinically, they are similar to those associated with natural COVID-19; they appear mostly after the first dose (64%), on average 5 days after vaccination with the mRNA or adenovirus vaccine, and show a female predominance. The appearance of these lesions in vaccinated patients, who are a priori not carriers of the virus, strongly suggests that CBLLs are due to the immune reaction against SARS-CoV-2 rather than to a direct effect of this virus on the skin, which also is a likely scenario with regards to other skin manifestations seen during the successive COVID-19 epidemic waves.^73-75

• Reactions to hyaluronic acid–containing cosmetic fillers: erythema, edema, and potentially painful induration at the filler injection sites. They constitute 0.04% of postvaccination skin reactions and appear 24 hours after vaccination with mRNA-based vaccines, equally after the first or second dose.⁷⁶

• Pityriasis rosea–like rash: most occur after the second dose of mRNA-based vaccines (0.023% of postvaccination skin reactions).⁷⁰

• Severe reactions: these include acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis⁷⁷ and Stevens-Johnson syndrome.⁷⁸ One case of each has been reported after the adenoviral vector vaccine 3 days after vaccination.

Other more rarely observed manifestations include reactivation/aggravation or de novo appearance of inflammatory dermatoses such as psoriasis,^79,80 leukocytoclastic vasculitis,^81,82 lymphocytic⁸³ or urticarial⁸⁴ vasculitis, Sweet syndrome,⁸⁵ lupus erythematosus, dermatomyositis,^86,87 alopecia,^37,88 infection with Trichophyton rubrum,⁸⁹ Grover disease,⁹⁰ and lymphomatoid reactions (such as recurrences of cutaneous T-cell lymphomas [CD30⁺], and de novo development of lymphomatoid papulosis).⁹¹

FINAL THOUGHTS

COVID-19 is associated with several skin manifestations, even though the causative role of SARS-CoV-2 has remained elusive. These dermatoses are highly polymorphous, mostly benign, and usually spontaneously regressive, but some of them reflect severe infection. They mostly were described during the first pandemic waves, reported in several national and international registries, which allowed for their morphological classification. Currently, cutaneous adverse effects of vaccines are the most frequently reported dermatoses associated with SARS-CoV-2, and it is likely that they will continue to be observed while COVID-19 vaccination lasts. Hopefully the end of the COVID-19 pandemic is near. In January 2023, the International Health Regulations Emergency Committee of the World Health Organization acknowledged that the COVID-19 pandemic may be approaching an inflexion point, and even though the event continues to constitute a public health emergency of international concern, the higher levels of population immunity achieved globally through infection and/or vaccination may limit the impact of SARS-CoV-2 on morbidity and mortality. However, there is little doubt that this virus will remain a permanently established pathogen in humans and animals for the foreseeable future.⁹² Therefore, physicians—especially dermatologists—should be aware of the various skin manifestations associated with COVID-19 so they can more efficiently manage their patients.

To the Editor:

Hailey-Hailey disease (HHD)(also known as familial benign chronic pemphigus) is an inherited autosomal-dominant condition in the family of chronic bullous diseases. It is characterized by flaccid blisters, erosions, and macerated vegetative plaques with a predilection for intertriginous sites. Lesions often are weeping, painful, pruritic, and malodorous, leading to decreased quality of life for patients. Complications of this chronic disease include an increased risk for secondary infection and malignant transformation to squamous cell carcinoma.¹

Treatment of HHD remains difficult. Topical steroids, oral steroids, and ablative techniques such as dermabrasion and ablative lasers are the most widely reported therapies. OnabotulinumtoxinA has been described as a successful treatment for patients with HHD, including for disease recalcitrant to other therapies.² We describe 2 patients with HHD who responded to treatment with intralesional onabotulinumtoxinA injections with and without adjuvant oral glycopyrrolate.

A 54-year-old woman presented with painful flaccid blisters under the breasts (Figure 1A) and in the axillae and groin of 3 weeks’ duration. Biopsy results from this initial visit were consistent with a diagnosis of HHD. The patient reported that the onset of blisters coincided with episodes of severe hyperhidrosis. Therapy with topical and oral steroids, antifungals, antibiotics, and topical aluminum chloride failed to achieve adequate disease control. After a discussion of the risks and benefits, the patient agreed to treatment with injections of onabotulinumtoxinA. At months 0, 3, and 6, the patient received 50 U of onabotulinumtoxinA under the breasts and in the axillae and the groin, for a total of 250 U each session. Each injection consisted of 2.5 U of onabotulinumtoxinA spaced 1-cm apart. Clinical improvement was noted within 2 weeks of initiating neuromodulator therapy. Follow-up at 9 months demonstrated improvement (Figure 1B); however, complete clearance was not achieved, and the patient required ongoing treatment with onabotulinumtoxinA every 3 months.

A 43-year-old woman presented with erythematous eroded plaques of the antecubital fossae, axillae, and chest (Figure 2A) of 10 years’ duration. A biopsy from an outside provider demonstrated findings consistent with a diagnosis of HHD. Prior therapies included topical and oral steroids. After a discussion of the risks and benefits, the patient was treated with onabotulinumtoxinA injections in combination with oral glycopyrrolate 5 mg daily. She received 30 U of onabotulinumtoxinA to each axilla, 10 U to each antecubital fossa, and 20 U to the central chest. At 1 month follow-up, the patient reported great improvement in lesion burden and active disease (Figure 2B). Nine months after treatment, her HHD was in complete remission with glycopyrrolate alone and she did not require further therapy with onabotulinumtoxinA.

Hailey-Hailey disease has been attributed to mutations of the ATPase secretory pathway Ca2+ transporting 1 gene, ATP2C1, that lead to aberrations in calcium signaling and subsequent impaired adhesion between keratinocytes.² These compromised cell-cell connections are worsened by the presence of humidity, causing further acantholysis. Chemical denervation of the sweat glands with botulinum toxin has been postulated to improve HHD by reducing moisture in vulnerable areas. Our 2 cases add to the existing literature documenting tangible clinical results that correlate with this hypothesis.^3-5

Our second case is unique in that the patient achieved rapid improvement using a combination of onabotulinumtoxinA and glycopyrrolate therapy. Both onabotulinumtoxinA and glycopyrrolate inhibit acetylcholine signaling that is required for sweat production; however, each drug exerts its effect on different zones of the cholinergic pathway, which may partially account for the synergistic effect of onabotulinumtoxinA and glycopyrrolate to improve HHD, as sweating is dually inhibited by the 2 drugs. Additionally, the combined local and systemic administration of these anticholinergic medications may further potentiate the sweat blockade, particularly in areas most prone to disease.

Botulinum toxin for the treatment of HHD is an effective monotherapy. The addition of an oral anticholinergic to local neuromodulator injections may speed symptom resolution and sustain disease remission. Further studies to evaluate this combination are warranted.

To the Editor:

Hailey-Hailey disease (HHD)(also known as familial benign chronic pemphigus) is an inherited autosomal-dominant condition in the family of chronic bullous diseases. It is characterized by flaccid blisters, erosions, and macerated vegetative plaques with a predilection for intertriginous sites. Lesions often are weeping, painful, pruritic, and malodorous, leading to decreased quality of life for patients. Complications of this chronic disease include an increased risk for secondary infection and malignant transformation to squamous cell carcinoma.¹

Treatment of HHD remains difficult. Topical steroids, oral steroids, and ablative techniques such as dermabrasion and ablative lasers are the most widely reported therapies. OnabotulinumtoxinA has been described as a successful treatment for patients with HHD, including for disease recalcitrant to other therapies.² We describe 2 patients with HHD who responded to treatment with intralesional onabotulinumtoxinA injections with and without adjuvant oral glycopyrrolate.

A 54-year-old woman presented with painful flaccid blisters under the breasts (Figure 1A) and in the axillae and groin of 3 weeks’ duration. Biopsy results from this initial visit were consistent with a diagnosis of HHD. The patient reported that the onset of blisters coincided with episodes of severe hyperhidrosis. Therapy with topical and oral steroids, antifungals, antibiotics, and topical aluminum chloride failed to achieve adequate disease control. After a discussion of the risks and benefits, the patient agreed to treatment with injections of onabotulinumtoxinA. At months 0, 3, and 6, the patient received 50 U of onabotulinumtoxinA under the breasts and in the axillae and the groin, for a total of 250 U each session. Each injection consisted of 2.5 U of onabotulinumtoxinA spaced 1-cm apart. Clinical improvement was noted within 2 weeks of initiating neuromodulator therapy. Follow-up at 9 months demonstrated improvement (Figure 1B); however, complete clearance was not achieved, and the patient required ongoing treatment with onabotulinumtoxinA every 3 months.

A 43-year-old woman presented with erythematous eroded plaques of the antecubital fossae, axillae, and chest (Figure 2A) of 10 years’ duration. A biopsy from an outside provider demonstrated findings consistent with a diagnosis of HHD. Prior therapies included topical and oral steroids. After a discussion of the risks and benefits, the patient was treated with onabotulinumtoxinA injections in combination with oral glycopyrrolate 5 mg daily. She received 30 U of onabotulinumtoxinA to each axilla, 10 U to each antecubital fossa, and 20 U to the central chest. At 1 month follow-up, the patient reported great improvement in lesion burden and active disease (Figure 2B). Nine months after treatment, her HHD was in complete remission with glycopyrrolate alone and she did not require further therapy with onabotulinumtoxinA.

Hailey-Hailey disease has been attributed to mutations of the ATPase secretory pathway Ca2+ transporting 1 gene, ATP2C1, that lead to aberrations in calcium signaling and subsequent impaired adhesion between keratinocytes.² These compromised cell-cell connections are worsened by the presence of humidity, causing further acantholysis. Chemical denervation of the sweat glands with botulinum toxin has been postulated to improve HHD by reducing moisture in vulnerable areas. Our 2 cases add to the existing literature documenting tangible clinical results that correlate with this hypothesis.^3-5

Our second case is unique in that the patient achieved rapid improvement using a combination of onabotulinumtoxinA and glycopyrrolate therapy. Both onabotulinumtoxinA and glycopyrrolate inhibit acetylcholine signaling that is required for sweat production; however, each drug exerts its effect on different zones of the cholinergic pathway, which may partially account for the synergistic effect of onabotulinumtoxinA and glycopyrrolate to improve HHD, as sweating is dually inhibited by the 2 drugs. Additionally, the combined local and systemic administration of these anticholinergic medications may further potentiate the sweat blockade, particularly in areas most prone to disease.

Botulinum toxin for the treatment of HHD is an effective monotherapy. The addition of an oral anticholinergic to local neuromodulator injections may speed symptom resolution and sustain disease remission. Further studies to evaluate this combination are warranted.

To the Editor:

Hailey-Hailey disease (HHD)(also known as familial benign chronic pemphigus) is an inherited autosomal-dominant condition in the family of chronic bullous diseases. It is characterized by flaccid blisters, erosions, and macerated vegetative plaques with a predilection for intertriginous sites. Lesions often are weeping, painful, pruritic, and malodorous, leading to decreased quality of life for patients. Complications of this chronic disease include an increased risk for secondary infection and malignant transformation to squamous cell carcinoma.¹

Treatment of HHD remains difficult. Topical steroids, oral steroids, and ablative techniques such as dermabrasion and ablative lasers are the most widely reported therapies. OnabotulinumtoxinA has been described as a successful treatment for patients with HHD, including for disease recalcitrant to other therapies.² We describe 2 patients with HHD who responded to treatment with intralesional onabotulinumtoxinA injections with and without adjuvant oral glycopyrrolate.

A 54-year-old woman presented with painful flaccid blisters under the breasts (Figure 1A) and in the axillae and groin of 3 weeks’ duration. Biopsy results from this initial visit were consistent with a diagnosis of HHD. The patient reported that the onset of blisters coincided with episodes of severe hyperhidrosis. Therapy with topical and oral steroids, antifungals, antibiotics, and topical aluminum chloride failed to achieve adequate disease control. After a discussion of the risks and benefits, the patient agreed to treatment with injections of onabotulinumtoxinA. At months 0, 3, and 6, the patient received 50 U of onabotulinumtoxinA under the breasts and in the axillae and the groin, for a total of 250 U each session. Each injection consisted of 2.5 U of onabotulinumtoxinA spaced 1-cm apart. Clinical improvement was noted within 2 weeks of initiating neuromodulator therapy. Follow-up at 9 months demonstrated improvement (Figure 1B); however, complete clearance was not achieved, and the patient required ongoing treatment with onabotulinumtoxinA every 3 months.

A 43-year-old woman presented with erythematous eroded plaques of the antecubital fossae, axillae, and chest (Figure 2A) of 10 years’ duration. A biopsy from an outside provider demonstrated findings consistent with a diagnosis of HHD. Prior therapies included topical and oral steroids. After a discussion of the risks and benefits, the patient was treated with onabotulinumtoxinA injections in combination with oral glycopyrrolate 5 mg daily. She received 30 U of onabotulinumtoxinA to each axilla, 10 U to each antecubital fossa, and 20 U to the central chest. At 1 month follow-up, the patient reported great improvement in lesion burden and active disease (Figure 2B). Nine months after treatment, her HHD was in complete remission with glycopyrrolate alone and she did not require further therapy with onabotulinumtoxinA.

Hailey-Hailey disease has been attributed to mutations of the ATPase secretory pathway Ca2+ transporting 1 gene, ATP2C1, that lead to aberrations in calcium signaling and subsequent impaired adhesion between keratinocytes.² These compromised cell-cell connections are worsened by the presence of humidity, causing further acantholysis. Chemical denervation of the sweat glands with botulinum toxin has been postulated to improve HHD by reducing moisture in vulnerable areas. Our 2 cases add to the existing literature documenting tangible clinical results that correlate with this hypothesis.^3-5

Our second case is unique in that the patient achieved rapid improvement using a combination of onabotulinumtoxinA and glycopyrrolate therapy. Both onabotulinumtoxinA and glycopyrrolate inhibit acetylcholine signaling that is required for sweat production; however, each drug exerts its effect on different zones of the cholinergic pathway, which may partially account for the synergistic effect of onabotulinumtoxinA and glycopyrrolate to improve HHD, as sweating is dually inhibited by the 2 drugs. Additionally, the combined local and systemic administration of these anticholinergic medications may further potentiate the sweat blockade, particularly in areas most prone to disease.

Botulinum toxin for the treatment of HHD is an effective monotherapy. The addition of an oral anticholinergic to local neuromodulator injections may speed symptom resolution and sustain disease remission. Further studies to evaluate this combination are warranted.