Facial Papulopustular Eruption during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Patients Treated with EGFR Inhibitors

De Luca, Eleonora; Sollena, Pietro; Di Nardo, Lucia; D’Argento, Ettore; Vita, Emanuele; Tortora, Giampaolo; Peris, Ketty

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/8859032

Dermatology Research and Practice

On this page

Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion Conclusions Data Availability Conflicts of Interest References Copyright Related Articles

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2024 | Article ID 8859032 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/8859032

Facial Papulopustular Eruption during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Patients Treated with EGFR Inhibitors

Eleonora De Luca,¹Pietro Sollena,²Lucia Di Nardo,¹Ettore D’Argento,³Emanuele Vita,³Giampaolo Tortora,³and Ketty Peris^1,2

Academic Editor: Craig G. Burkhart

Received09 Jan 2023

Revised16 Sept 2023

Accepted28 Dec 2023

Published11 Jan 2024

Abstract

Papulopustular rash (PPR) is the most frequent cutaneous adverse event during treatment with epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors (EGFRis). Although often mild in severity, it can impair patients’ quality of life and may also be a reason for discontinuing or changing the dose of the antineoplastic treatment. During COVID-19 pandemics, the use of surgical masks drastically increased and it had an impact on the face skin microenvironment, favoring the worsening of dermatological pathologies. We reported the relapse of PPR in patients treated with EGFR inhibitors who consistently wore face masks (>6 hours/day). All the patients developed the PPR within 6 months of starting mask use. Compared to the PPR occurred previously, after mask use, the skin eruption was more severe and affected mainly those regions of the face which came into contact with the mask. Patients received topical or systemic treatment, obtaining complete response in 65.7% of the cases. The establishment of an early treatment for the PPR allows continuing the oncologic treatment, without any suspension which could result in a decreased oncologic outcome. In conclusion, when using these devices, it is recommended to use special precautions, particularly in oncologic patients, by using a daily prophylactic skincare and replacing masks regularly with regular and frequent breaks.

1. Introduction

The epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) is a tyrosine kinase receptor involved in cell proliferation, survival, and differentiation in both normal and cancer cells [1]. EGFR inhibitors (EGFRis) are targeted agents which provided a major advance in the management of many malignant tumors including colorectal cancer [2], head and neck squamous cell carcinoma [3], nonsmall-cell lung cancer [4], breast cancer [5], and pancreatic cancer [6].

EGFR inhibitors demonstrate a high efficacy in treating aggressive tumors; however, they are also associated with frequent cutaneous side effects (50–90% of the patients) [7, 8] as well as adverse events occurring in the gastrointestinal tract (mainly diarrhea and stomatitis/mucositis), hepatotoxicity, interstitial lung diseases, ocular toxicity, and electrolyte imbalances (mostly hypomagnesaemia) [9, 10].

Skin manifestations include papulopustular lesions (>70%), dry skin, pruritus, paronychia, pyogenic granulomas, hair and nail abnormalities (mostly trichomegaly) and rarely severe bullous dermatitis, Stevens–Johnson syndrome, and toxic epidermal necrolysis [5, 11–13]. The severity of cutaneous reactions is assessed according to the National Cancer Institute: Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0 (NCI CTCAE v5.0) scale [14]. Skin reactions are often mild but can be painful and impair patients’ emotional well-being and quality of life [15]. In case of severe cutaneous reactions (CTCAE grade 3 or higher), it may also be necessary to discontinue the oncologic therapy or decrease its dosage [16–18]. It has also been hypothesized that skin adverse events may be considered a marker of the efficacy of the therapy and evidence of the antitumor activity. Some studies report higher response rates and longer survival times among patients who developed skin reactions compared to patients who did not develop any skin adverse event [19–21]. Cutaneous reactions are mainly managed with topical treatments, including moisturizers, antibiotics, and corticosteroids [22]. Prophylactic management with hydrophilic cream, antibiotics, and sunscreen reduces the incidence of dermatological toxicity associated with EGFR-targeted agents by 42–77%, without affecting the antitumor efficacy and improving patients’ quality of life [13, 23].

The papulopustular reaction (PPR) usually starts within 3 weeks after the initiation of the EGFR inhibitors treatment [20, 24]. Patients first develop erythema and edema which are followed by papules, pustules, and nodules in the absence of comedones [25, 26]. The PPR mainly affects the sebaceous areas on the body; it is mostly located on the face (>80%), trunk (>50%), scalp (<20%), and extremities (>20%) [27]. The pathogenetic mechanism underlying the papulopustular manifestation has been related to the inhibition of the EGFR of the epidermal keratinocytes resulting in apoptosis and release of inflammatory cytokines [28, 29].

In 2020, during COVID-19 pandemics, the use of surgical and FFP2 masks drastically increased, changing the face-skin equilibrium and inducing an increase of temperature and humidity, dehydration, transepidermal water loss, increased pH, erythema, and sebum dysregulation [30–32]. Higher temperature and humidity are associated with an increase of sebum excretion, which has a role in acne pathogenesis and, therefore, can cause acne flares [33]. This cutaneous microclimate led to a skin dysbiosis (increasing number of Cutibacterium acnes and Desmodex folliculorum) and, therefore, to an inflammatory response [34–36]. Due to these changes, the use of masks was recently associated to the onset of mask-related acne, a subtype of acne mechanica related to the friction of the textile on the skin [37], and the worsening of other dermatological pathologies such as rosacea, eczema, and perioral dermatitis [38, 39].

The effect of mask use in patients treated with EGFR inhibitors has not been explored yet. In this study, we reported and characterized the relapse of PPR in patients treated with EGFR inhibitors who consistently wore face masks during COVID-19 pandemics.

2. Materials and Methods

We performed a retrospective study to evaluate the presence or the relapse of the papulopustular reaction located on the face in patients treated with EGFR inhibitors who wore face masks for a consistent amount of time. Patients in treatment with EGFRi afferent to the Department of Oncology of Agostino Gemelli Foundation (FGP) were consecutively enrolled from March 2020 to March 2021.

Inclusion criteria were patients >18 years old, treatment with EGFR inhibitor, and the use of face masks for at least 6 hours a day minimum 1 month (range 1–6). Exclusion criteria consisted of the presence of papulopustular manifestation before starting EGFRi, patients affected by pilosebaceous unit congenital diseases, and chronic assumption of topical and/or systemic antibiotics.

Data related to the characteristics of the patients, type of cancer and oncologic treatment, PPR, use of mask, and previous adverse dermatological reactions were collected at the time of dermatological observations (Table 1).

We assessed the PPR severity with the CTCAE v5.0 scale [14] and the Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) EGFR Inhibitor Skin Toxicity Tool (MESTT) scale [40]. The CTCAE scale grades from 1 to 5, from the mildest to the most severe, based on the percentage of affected skin and on the presence of cutaneous symptoms. The MESTT is an EGFR inhibitor dermatological adverse event-specific grading scale proposed by the MASCC toxicity group to better describe the PPR; it includes objective parameters as the number of papules and pustules and erythema and edema, as well as symptoms and quality of life measures.

Semiquantitative data were analyzed by Student's t-test or by medians with the Mann–Whitney test. Univariate analysis by test or by Fisher’s exact test was used to test the significance of cutaneous adverse events frequency and PPR severity according to clinic-pathological characteristics of patients and to the specific type of EGFRi administered.

We used a simplified MESTT grading combining MESTT 1a/1a into the MESTT grading 1 category, 2a/2b into the MESTT grading 2 category, and 3a/3b into the MEST grading 3 category.

To assess the difference of localization and severity of the PPR before and after mask use, we used a Wilcoxon signed rank test for matched-pairs’ ordinal data. The association among clinical outcome (complete response vs. partial response), clinic-pathological characteristics, and PPR treatment was evaluated with univariable and multivariable logistic regressions and presented through odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Both a stepwise selection and the bivariate Wald’s model were used. The alpha level for all analyses was set to . All statistical analyses were performed using STATA/BE v.17.0.

3. Results

Thirty-five patients comprising 19 females (54%) and 16 males (46%) treated with EGFRi were included in the study. Internal malignancies included nonsmall-cell lung cancer in 16/35 (46%) patients, breast cancer (1/35, 3%), gastrointestinal cancer (14/35, 40%), and head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (4/34, 11%). 9 patients (26%) were treated with cetuximab, 1 patient (3%) with erlotinib, 7 patients (20%) with afatinib, 2 patients (6%) with osimertinib, 7 patients (20%) with gefinitinib, 8 patients (23%) with panitumumab, and 1 patient (3%) with vandetanib. Other ongoing oncologic treatments included BRAF inhibitor in 1 patient (3%) and FOLFIRI chemotherapy protocol (folinic acid, fluorouracil, and irinotecan) in 6 patients (17%).

The papulopustular manifestation was localized on the entire face in 46% of the patients (16/35), exclusively on the cheeks and chin in 37% of the patients (13/35), and on both face and body in 17% of the patients (6/35) (Figure 1). Severity according to the CTCAE scale was grade 1 in 20% of the patients (17/35), grade 2 in 60% (21/35), and grade 3 in 20% (7/35). Evaluated with the MESTT scale, 14% (5/35) of the cases were grade 1b, 3% (1/35) grade 2a, 51% (18/35) grade 2b, 11% (4/35) grade 3a, and 20% (7/35) grade 3b. Symptoms included pruritus (80% of the patients, 28/35), dry skin (34%, 12/35), and burning (86%, 30/35).

Based on the start date of mask use reported by the patients, all patients developed the PPR within 6 months of starting mask use; 66% (23/35) of them developed the papulopustular reaction in the first 3 months.

Patients were given topical treatment in all cases although 7/35 (20%) patients needed to add systemic antibiotics (doxycycline 100 mg daily). Topical therapies included potency steroids in 8/35 patients (23%), mild potency steroids in 2/35 (6%), topical steroids associated with antibiotics in 20/35 (57%), emollients in 2/35 (6%), and topical retinoids associated with steroids in 3/35 (9%).

All the patients improved with the treatment; 34% (12/35) obtained a partial response and 66% (23/35) a complete response (remission of the PPR). The severity of PPR required a modification of the oncologic treatment in 6 patients (6/35, 17%); no patient needed the discontinuation of oncologic treatment. The oncologic treatment outcome at the time of dermatological examination was partial response in 69% of the patients (25/35) and complete response in 17% (6/35).

Medical history revealed a previous skin papulopustular eruption caused by EGFRi, mainly located on both face and body (31/35, 89%). Previous PPR severity assessed with the CTACAE scale was grade I in 18 patients (18/35, 51%), grade 2 in 15 patients (15/35, 43%), and grade 3 in 2 patients (2/35, 6%). Evaluated with the MESTT scale, 23% (8/35) of the previous PPR was grade 1a, 29% (10/35) was grade 1b, 26% (9/35) was grade 2a, 17% (6/35) was grade 2b, and 6% (2/35) was grade 3a. By evaluating the relationship between PPR grading prior to face mask use and the type of EGFRi administered (cetuximab, afatinib, osimertinib, gefitinib, and panitumumab), we found a significant higher frequency of CTCAE grade 2 PPR (MESTT grade 2a/2b) among patients undergoing panitumumab and cetuximab than other EGFRi, while grade 3 PPR occurred only in patients receiving panitumumab () (Figure 2). Instead, combination therapy with BRAFi and/or FOLFIRI did not influence PPR severity (). Other skin adverse events related to EGFRi treatment were observed in 8 patients (all grade 1) as follows: 5 paronychia, 1 pyogenic granuloma, 1 trichomegaly, and 1 ungual dystrophy. No patient referred personal history of previous dermatoses.

We analyzed the difference of the PPR developed before and during the use of the mask during the pandemics. A Wilcoxon signed rank test indicates that the PPR severity after face mask use was greater than prior to using it (z = −4.0, and z = −4.4, , for CTCAE and MESTT scale, respectively). We also investigated the PPR localization pre- and postface mask use, showing a significant difference (z = −5.18, ). The most frequent site of PP manifestation during the mask use was the entire face (16/35, 82.9%), followed by cheeks and chin (13/35, 37.14%), while prior to face mask use, PPR was mostly localized on both face and body (31/35, 88.57%) and on other body sites (4/35, 11.43%).

Topical (steroid cream, combo steroid + antiseptic/antibiotic cream, emollient cream, and topical retinoids + steroids) and systemic treatments (antibiotics) have been used for the management of PPR, obtaining complete response in 65.7% (23/35) of the patients. We performed univariable and multivariable logistic regression analysis to evaluate the association among clinical outcome (CR versus PR), clinic-pathological characteristics, and treatment (type of topical/systemic treatment, type of combo therapy, type of EGFRi, PPR localization, PPR severity, gender, and age). PPR severity, both assessed through MESTT and CTCAE scales, was found to be the only independent predictor of partial response, irrespective of gender, age, and EGFRi administered (Table 2). Logistic regression was used for univariable and multivariable analyses; both a stepwise selection and the bivariate Wald’s model were used.

4. Discussion

The results of our study indicate that wearing face mask had a significant effect in relapsing and worsening the severity of PPR as an adverse event during EGFRi treatment.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of face masks increased among healthcare professionals and general population, helping to slow the spread of the virus. Long-time mask wearing was associated to several facial dermatosis, including irritant and contact dermatitis, seborrheic dermatitis, rosacea, and acne. The change of temperature, humidity, and the cutaneous microclimate is responsible of triggering flares of acne and rosacea, as reported in several studies [41–44]. Topical treatment with salicylic acid, benzoyl peroxide, topical retinoids, or ivermectine was recommended to treat mild cases. Moderate-severe cases can be treated with systemic antibiotics as tetracycline [45, 46].

The oncologic patients included in our study, treated with EGFR inhibitors, developed a relapse of the papulopustular reaction as cutaneous adverse event. The prolonged use of face mask (>6 hours/day) determined the relapse of a PPR with higher severity and with the specific localization on the face. Compared to the PPR occurred previously, located in 89% of the cases on both face and body, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the skin eruption affected mainly those regions of the face which came into contact with the mask (lower third of the face). The PPR manifested all over the face in 46% of the enrolled patients while in 37% of the patients, it was located only on the cheeks and chin area. The alteration of the microenvironment, temperature, and humidity induced a skin dysbiosis which resulted in a higher severity of the skin adverse event, assessed with both the CTCAE scale and the MEST scale. The friction of the textile on the skin and the subsequent increase of the inflammatory response were probably the cause of the worsening symptomatology associated to the PPR. Patients complained pruritus (80% of patients), xerosis (34.3%), and burning sensation (85.7%), especially while wearing face masks. All the patients developed the PPR within 6 months of the start of mask use and 65.7% within 3 months. Topical treatment with emollients, steroids, and antibiotics or systemic treatment with antibiotics resulted in a clinical benefit in all our patients and in a complete remission of the eruption in 65.7% of the cases. The establishment of an early treatment for the PPR allows continuing the oncologic treatment without any suspension that could result in a decreased oncologic outcome.

The use of face masks is considered one of the main strategies for COVID-19 prevention. In case of use of these protective devices, it is recommended to use special precautions. We recommend daily prophylactic skincare with gentle cleanser and noncomedogenic emollients. Masks should be replaced regularly and hands should be washed before and after touching the mask. Regular breaks from the mask may reduce pressure and irritation and, therefore, the relapse of PPR or other facial dermatoses.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, this study highlights the significant impact of prolonged face mask use during the COVID-19 pandemic on patients treated with EGFRi, leading to the relapse and exacerbation of PPR as a cutaneous adverse event. The altered microenvironment caused by mask use, including changes in temperature and humidity, induced skin dysbiosis and heightened severity of the PPR, particularly localized on the face in regions in contact with the mask. The study emphasizes the importance of early and effective management, including topical and systemic treatments, to alleviate PPR symptoms and allow patients to continue oncologic treatment without interruptions. The findings underscore the need for prophylactic skincare measures for individuals undergoing EGFRi therapy and regular breaks from mask use to mitigate the risk of dermatological complications.

Data Availability

The data used to support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

References

A. Wells, “EGF receptor,” The International Journal of Biochemistry and Cell Biology, vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 637–643, 1999.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Van Cutsem, C. H. Köhne, E. Hitre et al., “Cetuximab and chemotherapy as initial treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer,” New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 360, no. 14, pp. 1408–1417, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. A. Bonner, P. M. Harari, J. Giralt et al., “Radiotherapy plus cetuximab for squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck,” New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 354, no. 6, pp. 567–578, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Pirker, J. R. Pereira, A. Szczesna et al., “Cetuximab plus chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (FLEX): an open-label randomised phase III trial,” The Lancet, vol. 373, no. 9674, pp. 1525–1531, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. E. Lacouture, M. J. Anadkat, R. J. Bensadoun et al., “Clinical practice guidelines for the prevention and treatment of EGFR inhibitor-associated dermatologic toxicities,” Supportive Care in Cancer, vol. 19, no. 8, pp. 1079–1095, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. J. Moore, D. Goldstein, J. Hamm et al., “Erlotinib plus gemcitabine compared with gemcitabine alone in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer: a phase III trial of the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 25, no. 15, pp. 1960–1966, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. D. Hofheinz, S. Segaert, M. J. Safont, G. Demonty, and H. Prenen, “Management of adverse events during treatment of gastrointestinal cancers with epidermal growth factor inhibitors,” Critical Reviews in Oncology, vol. 114, pp. 102–113, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. J. Jonker, C. J. O'Callaghan, C. S. Karapetis et al., “Cetuximab for the treatment of colorectal cancer,” New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 357, no. 20, pp. 2040–2048, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Harandi, A. S. Zaidi, A. M. Stocker, and D. A. Laber, “Clinical efficacy and toxicity of anti-EGFR therapy in common cancers,” Journal of Oncology, vol. 2009, Article ID 567486, 14 pages, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Califano, N. Tariq, S. Compton et al., “Expert consensus on the management of adverse events from EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors in the UK,” Drugs, vol. 75, no. 12, pp. 1335–1348, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Kozuki, “Skin problems and EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitor,” Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 291–298, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Gutzmer, A. Wollenberg, S. Ugurel, B. Homey, A. Ganser, and A. Kapp, “Cutaneous side effects of new antitumor drugs: clinical features and management,” Deutsches Ärzteblatt international, vol. 109, no. 8, pp. 133–140, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Ocvirk and S. Cencelj, “Management of cutaneous side-effects of cetuximab therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer,” Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 453–459, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
United States Department of Health and Human Services, “Common Terminology criteria for adverse events (CTCAE),” 2017, https://ctep.cancer.gov/protocoldevelopment/electronic_applications/docs/ctcae_v5_quick_reference_5x7.pdf.
View at: Google Scholar
C. Charles, C. Bungener, D. Razavi et al., “Impact of dermatologic adverse events induced by targeted therapies on quality of life,” Critical Reviews in Oncology, vol. 101, pp. 158–168, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Osio, C. Mateus, J. C. Soria et al., “Cutaneous side-effects in patients on long-term treatment with epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors,” British Journal of Dermatology, vol. 161, no. 3, pp. 515–521, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Perez-Soler and E. Van Cutsem, “Clinical research of EGFR inhibitors and related dermatologic toxicities,” Oncology, vol. 21, pp. 10–16, 2007.
View at: Google Scholar
R. Sipples, “Common side effects of anti-EGFR therapy: acneform rash,” Seminars in Oncology Nursing, vol. 22, pp. 28–34, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. R. Shah, R. R. Shah, and J. Morganroth, “Tyrosine kinase inhibitors: their on-target toxicities as potential indicators of efficacy,” Drug Safety, vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 413–426, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Cunningham, Y. Humblet, S. Siena et al., “Cetuximab monotherapy and cetuximab plus irinotecan in irinotecan-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer,” New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 351, no. 4, pp. 337–345, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Peeters, S. Siena, E. Van Cutsem et al., “Association of progression-free survival, overall survival, and patient-reported outcomes by skin toxicity and KRAS status in patients receiving panitumumab monotherapy,” Cancer, vol. 115, no. 7, pp. 1544–1554, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. D. Hofheinz, G. Deplanque, Y. Komatsu et al., “Recommendations for the prophylactic management of skin reactions induced by epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors in patients with solid tumors,” The Oncologist, vol. 21, no. 12, pp. 1483–1491, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. E. Lacouture, M. Anadkat, A. Jatoi, T. Garawin, C. Bohac, and E. Mitchell, “Dermatologic toxicity occurring during anti-EGFR monoclonal inhibitor therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a systematic review,” Clinical Colorectal Cancer, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 85–96, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Van Cutsem, M. Peeters, S. Siena et al., “Open-label phase III trial of panitumumab plus best supportive care compared with best supportive care alone in patients with chemotherapy-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 25, no. 13, pp. 1658–1664, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. E. Lacouture, “Insights into the pathophysiology and management of dermatologic toxicities to EGFR-targeted therapies in colorectal cancer,” Cancer Nursing, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. S17–S26, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. E. Lacouture, “Mechanisms of cutaneous toxicities to EGFR inhibitors,” Nature Reviews Cancer, vol. 6, no. 10, pp. 803–812, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Yalici-Armagan, B. T. Ayanoglu, and H. G. Demirdag, “Targeted tumour therapy induced papulopustular rash and other dermatologic side effects: a retrospective study,” Cutaneous and Ocular Toxicology, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 261–266, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. M. Lichtenberger, P. A. Gerber, M. Holcmann et al., “Epidermal EGFR controls cutaneous host defense and prevents inflammation,” Science Translational Medicine, vol. 5, no. 199, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Tohyama, M. Hamada, D. Harada et al., “Clinical features and treatment of epidermal growth factor inhibitor-related late-phase papulopustular rash,” The Journal of Dermatology, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 121–127, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Blicharz, J. Czuwara, Z. Samochocki et al., “Hand eczema-A growing dermatological concern during the COVID-19 pandemic and possible treatments,” Dermatologic Therapy, vol. 33, no. 5, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Giacalone, A. Minuti, C. B. Spigariolo, E. Passoni, and G. Nazzaro, “Facial dermatoses in the general population due to wearing of personal protective masks during the COVID-19 pandemic: first observations after lockdown,” Clinical and Experimental Dermatology, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 368-369, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. Hua, Y. Zuo, R. Wan et al., “Short-term skin reactions following use of N95 respirators and medical masks,” Contact Dermatitis, vol. 83, no. 2, pp. 115–121, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
I. Narang, K. Sardana, R. Bajpai, and V. K. Garg, “Seasonal aggravation of acne in summers and the effect of temperature and humidity in a study in a tropical setting,” Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 1098–1104, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. K. Jusuf, I. B. Putra, and L. Sari, “Differences of microbiomes found in non-inflammatory and inflammatory lesions of acne vulgaris,” Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dermatology, vol. 13, pp. 773–780, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Daou, M. Paradiso, K. Hennessy, and L. Seminario-Vidal, “Rosacea and the microbiome: a systematic review,” Dermatologic Therapy, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 1–12, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Dréno, S. Pécastaings, S. Corvec, S. Veraldi, A. Khammari, and C. Roques, “Cutibacterium acnes (Propionibacterium acnes) and acne vulgaris: a brief look at the latest updates,” Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, vol. 32, no. S2, pp. 5–14, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. L. Teo, “Diagnostic and management considerations for maskne in the era of COVID-19,” Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, vol. 84, no. 2, pp. 520-521, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Blicharz, L. Rudnicka, and Z. Samochocki, “Staphylococcus aureus: an underestimated factor in the pathogenesis of atopic dermatitis?” Advances in Dermatology and Allergology, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 11–17, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Takiwaki, H. Tsuda, S. Arase, and H. Takeichi, “Differences between intrafollicular microorganism profiles in perioral and seborrhoeic dermatitis,” Clinical and Experimental Dermatology, vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 531–534, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. E. Lacouture, M. L. Maitland, S. Segaert et al., “A proposed EGFR inhibitor dermatologic adverse event-specific grading scale from the MASCC skin toxicity study group,” Supportive Care in Cancer, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 509–522, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Han, J. Shi, Y. Chen, and Z. Zhang, “Increased flare of acne caused by long-time mask wearing during COVID-19 pandemic among general population,” Dermatologic Therapy, vol. 33, no. 4, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Damiani, L. C. Gironi, A. Grada et al., “COVID-19 related masks increase severity of both acne (maskne) and rosacea (mask rosacea): multi-center, real-life, telemedical, and observational prospective study,” Dermatologic Therapy, vol. 34, no. 2, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Yaqoob, A. Saleem, F. A. Jarullah, A. Asif, M. Y. Essar, and S. Emad, “Association of acne with face mask in healthcare workers amidst the COVID-19 outbreak in karachi, Pakistan,” Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dermatology, vol. 14, pp. 1427–1433, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. E. Chiriac, U. Wollina, and D. Azoicai, “Flare-up of rosacea due to face mask in healthcare workers during COVID-19,” Medicine, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 416-417, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Abdali and J. Yu, “Occupational dermatoses related to personal protective equipment used during the COVID-19 pandemic,” Dermatologic Clinics, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 555–568, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Rudd and S. Walsh, “Mask related acne (maskne) and other facial dermatoses,” BMJ: British Medical Journal, vol. 373, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2024 Eleonora De Luca et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

170

Downloads

181

Citations