Literature DB >> 32682030

Prevalence of cheilitis in health care workers treating patients with COVID-19.

Mehak Singh1, Atul Bothra2, Manoj Pawar3, Anshu Maheswari4, Apoorv Tiwari5, Pankaj Adhicari2.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32682030      PMCID: PMC7363597          DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2020.06.1025

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Acad Dermatol        ISSN: 0190-9622            Impact factor:   11.527


× No keyword cloud information.
To the Editor: The COVID-19 pandemic heralded the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) by front-line health care workers (HCWs) working tirelessly for long hours. The extended use of PPE has led to various kinds of occupational dermatoses, including facial dermatitis, pressure injury, acne, and frictional injury, in up to 97% of HCWs. , In this study, we report preliminary data of HCWs experiencing various types of cheilitis due to the use of face masks. From April 15 through May 15, 2020, we came across 33 HCWs, engaged in COVID-19 duties, who complained of dryness, itching, smarting, and/or tightness of the lips after the use of face masks. The history, occupation, and clinical features including onset, duration, pattern of cheilitis, exacerbating factors, and duration of PPE worn were recorded, and final clinical diagnosis was made. Patch testing could not be performed. In the 33 HCWs, the most common presenting symptoms were tightness (63.64%) and chapping (57.57%), followed by burning sensation, smarting, and itching. The most common signs were flaking 24 (72.73%), scaling 15 (45.46%), and swelling 13 (39.39%). Generalized lip dryness, that is, cheilitis simplex (n = 21, 63.64%), was the most frequent pattern of cheilitis. Angular cheilitis was seen in 12 patients (36.36%), whereas progression to perioral involvement was seen in 5 patients (15.15%). Cheilitis venenata was observed in 10 (30.30%) patients, attributed here to N95 mask contact. Associated lip edema was present in 7 patients (21.21%). Secondary infections (27.27%) and hyperpigmentation (18.18%) were the most common sequelae (Supplemental Fig 1; available via Mendeley at https://doi.org/10.17632/655bpmbggv.1). Spicy food and hot beverages (n = 26, 78.79%) were the most common aggravating factors, followed by habitual picking/peeling (51.52%) and associated contact dermatitis to N95 masks (30.30%). Most of the HCWs admitted to extended work hours, with a mean of 8.92 ± 2.15 hours of face mask worn per day and 5.01 ± 1.11 hours of rotation per day (Table I). The patients were treated with liberal use of bland emollients and counseling to eliminate inciting factor(s) and break the wet-dry cycle by repeated application of saliva. Topical corticosteroids, topical calcineurin inhibitors, oral antihistamines, antibiotics, and vitamin B supplements were used as and when justified.
Table I

Summary of demographic and clinical features, causative agents, and treatments

ParametersValue%
Number of patients33
Age, y, mean ± SD32.28 ± 16.67
Sex, male:female14:19
Occupation
 Doctors1133.33
 Nurses1236.36
 Allied services (ward assistants, cleaners, transport teams, etc)412.12
Symptoms
 Burning sensation1339.39
 Smarting824.24
 Itching927.27
 Tightness2163.64
 Chapping1957.57
Signs
 Flaking2472.73
 Scaling1545.46
 Fissures1339.39
 Perioral accentuations515.15
 Swelling1236.36
Pattern of cheilitis observed
 Cheilitis simplex2163.64
 Angular cheilitis1236.36
 Perioral involvement515.15
 Cheilitis venenata1030.30
Type of cheilitis
 Irritant contact dermatitis2472.73
 Allergic contact dermatitis309.09
 Friction dermatitis618.18
Associated sequelae
 Hyperpigmentation618.18
 Secondary infection927.27
 Photosensitivity824.24
Exacerbating factors
 Habitual peeling/picking: exfoliative cheilitis1751.52
 Aggravation due to spicy food/hot beverages2678.79
Duration of PPE worn/d, h, mean ± SD8.92 ± 2.15
Duration of rotation/d, h, mean ± SD5.01 ± 1.11
History of dermatitis/allergic predisposition
 Atopy206.06
 Asthma618.18
 Food allergies412.12
 Lipstick/lip products allergy515.15
Contact dermatitis to components of PPE
 Gloves515.15
 Gown412.12
 Face shield103.03
 Face mask (including straps, nose piece, and the body)1236.36
 N95 masks866.67
 Surgical masks216.67
 Homemade fabric masks (dye dermatitis)216.67
Medications prescribed
 Barrier emollient3193.94
 Topical corticosteroid309.09
 Topical calcineurin inhibitor927.27
 Topical antibiotic927.27
 Oral antihistamine1133.33
 Vitamin B complex supplements1442.42

PPE, Personal protective equipment; SD, standard deviation.

Friction dermatitis may be caused by the constant rubbing by mask or by sweat wiping.

Our study denotes generalized lip dryness to be the most common presentation of lip cheilitis, which might progress to perioral involvement. PPE forms the major armamentarium for HCWs' protection in the fight against COVID-19. PPE-induced dermatoses lead to frequent irritation and subsequent touching of the face, which might increase disease transmission. The inadequate workforce, coupled with a relative shortage of PPE kits, results in the long duty hours of the HCWs and leads to constant chapping of the lips. An unconscious repeated contact with saliva follows, which macerates the skin and removes the protective oils, leading to a constant wet-dry cycle and resulting in disruption of skin barrier function and inflammation, which further perpetuates the cycle. Dehydration, air-conditioned rooms, and the humid environment created by the PPE also contribute (Supplemental Fig 2; available via Mendeley at https://doi.org/10.17632/phwh6mj87y.1). The authors would like to suggest that HCWs liberally use a bland emollient such as petrolatum jelly to moisturize the lips, avoid repeated lip licking, and increase hydration to prevent such occupational dermatoses. Summary of demographic and clinical features, causative agents, and treatments PPE, Personal protective equipment; SD, standard deviation. Friction dermatitis may be caused by the constant rubbing by mask or by sweat wiping.
  2 in total

1.  Angular cheilitis of COVID-19 patients: A case-series and literature review.

Authors:  Abanoub Riad; Islam Kassem; Julien Issa; Mai Badrah; Miloslav Klugar
Journal:  Oral Dis       Date:  2020-10-23       Impact factor: 4.068

Review 2.  Skin injuries due to Personal Protective Equipment and preventive measures in the COVID-19 context: an integrative review.

Authors:  Lorrany Fontenele Moraes da Silva; Alana Gomes de Araujo Almeida; Lívia Maia Pascoal; Marcelino Santos Neto; Francisca Elisângela Teixeira Lima; Floriacy Stabnow Santos
Journal:  Rev Lat Am Enfermagem       Date:  2022-04-20
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.