Literature DB >> 34139295

Clinical Manifestations and Patch test Results for Facial Dermatitis Associated with use of Disposable Face Masks during the COVID-19 Outbreak : A case-control study.

Seok Young Kang1, Bo Young Chung1, Jin Cheol Kim1, Chun Wook Park1, Hye One Kim2.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Keywords:  Allergen; Clinical manifestation; Contact dermatitis; Facial dermatitis; Mask; Patch tests

Year:  2021        PMID: 34139295      PMCID: PMC8200325          DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2021.06.026

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


× No keyword cloud information.
To the Editor: Due to the recent COVID-19 pandemic, people are wearing disposable masks more often than ever. The prolonged use of disposable masks has markedly increased cases of facial dermatitis, including irritant contact dermatitis, allergic contact dermatitis, and exacerbations of preexisting atopic dermatitis. Patch tests help differentiate possible etiologies and exclude allergic contact dermatitis; however, objective data are lacking to help determine the validity of positive allergens. Here, we undertook an observational study to investigate the clinical manifestation and patch test results of patients with facial dermatitis induced by wearing disposable masks. Korean patients older than 18 years of age with facial dermatitis diagnosed by dermatologists from the Department of Dermatology at Kangnam Sacred Heart Hospital after the outbreak of COVID-19 between January 2020 and July 2020 were included in the study. Clinically, 27 patients whose lesions and symptoms worsened after wearing a mask wereestablished as the mask group and 70 patients who developed facial dermatitis due to other causes were established as the control group. Both groups were recruited and distinguished using a questionnaire. Demographic features, clinical manifestations, objective bioengineering measurements (transepidermal water loss and stratum corneum hydration), and patch test (Korean standard series) results were analyzed in this study. The mean duration of disease was 6.24 months among the patients in the mask group and 22.87 months in the control group (Table I ). The distribution of skin lesions was similar in both groups except for the chin area, where skin lesions were more frequently observed in the mask group (14.81%; 4 of 27 patients). Erythema and papules were the most common characteristics of the skin lesions in both groups; however, hyperkeratosis (22.22%; 6 of 27) and xerosis (11.11%; 3 of 27) were significantly more frequent in the mask group.
Table I

Comparison between mask group and group induced by other causes with clinical manifestation

Clinical manifestationInduced by mask(n = 27)Induced by other causes(n = 70)
Disease duration, mean (SD), month6.24 ± 6.0022.78 ± 30.37
Mean stratum corneum hydration (SD), A.U.61.93 ± 21.0358.94 ± 19.33
Mean TEWL (SD), g/m2/hr16.98 ± 6.5321.11 ± 20.88
Patients, Number (%)
 Distribution
 Centrofacial18 (66.66)9 (33.33)
 Peripheral45 (64.28)25 (35.71)
Location of eczematous skin lesions
 Forehead8 (29.62)23 (32.85)
 Nose3 (11.11)7 (10)
 Perioral6 (22.22)17 (24.28)
 Chin4 (14.81)4 (5.71)
 Ears4 (14.81)10 (14.28)
 Cheek13 (48.14)38 (54.28)
 Others3 (11.11)8 (11.42)
Cutaneous signs
 Erythema19 (70.37)46 (65.71)
 Hyperkeratosis6 (22.22)3 (4.28)
 Pustule3 (11.11)18 (25.71)
 Papule6 (22.22)22 (31.42)
 Excoriation02 (2.85)
 Vesicle2 (7.40)10 (14.28)
 Xerosis3 (11.11)1 (1.42)
 Hyperpigmentation1 (3.70)10 (14.28)
 Edema2 (7.40)0
Cutaneous symptoms
 Itching15 (55.55)51 (72.85)
 Flushing6 (22.22)4 (5.71)
 Stinging/heating sensation4 (14.81)11 (15.71)

Each patient has 1 or more skin lesions, cutaneous signs, or symptoms.

A.U., Arbitrary unit; SD, standard deviation; TEWL, transepidermal water loss.

P value < .05.

Comparison between mask group and group induced by other causes with clinical manifestation Each patient has 1 or more skin lesions, cutaneous signs, or symptoms. A.U., Arbitrary unit; SD, standard deviation; TEWL, transepidermal water loss. P value < .05. In patch test results (Table II ), the mask patch tested positive more frequently to potassium dichromate (25.92%; 7 of 27) and 4-tert-butylphenol-formaldehyde resin (14.81%; 4 of 27). Positive reactions to N-isopropyl-N-phenyl-4-phenylenediamine (7.40%; 2 of 27), formaldehyde (11.11%; 3 of 27), and thimerosal (14.81%; 4 of 27) were more common in the mask group, but the difference was not statistically significant. Interestingly, these substances are known components of disposable facial masks. In addition, 11 patients in the control group (15.71%; 11 of 70) had negative reactions to all the items in the patch tests, while only 1 patient in the mask group did (3.70%; 1 of 27).
Table II

Comparison between the mask group and control group in the patch test results

Patch test itemsInduced by mask (n = 27)Induced by other causes (n = 70)
1. Nickel (II) sulfate hexahydrate15 (55.55%)31 (44.28%)
2. Lanolin alcohol (wool alcohol)1 (3.70%)2 (2.85%)
3. Neomycin sulfate02 (2.85%)
4. Potassium dichromate7 (25.92%)7 (10%)
5. Mercury ammonium chloride05 (7.14%)
6. Fragrance mix I1 (3.70%)6 (8.57%)
7. Colophonium1 (3.70%)2 (2.85%)
8. Imidazolidinyl urea01 (1.42%)
9. Clinquinol01 (1.42%)
10. Myroxylon pereirae resin (Balsam Peru)2 (7.40%)4 (5.71%)
11. IPPD2 (7.40%)0
12. Cobalt (II) chloride hexahydrate3 (11.11%)2 (2.85%)
13. PTBP4 (14.81%)0
14. Paraben mix1 (3.70%)0
15. Captan2 (7.40%)3 (4.28%)
16. Budesonide02 (2.85%)
17. Methylisothizolinone + methylcholoroisothizolinone01 (1.42%)
18. Quaternium-151 (3.70%)0
19. MBT01 (1.42%)
20. PPD07 (10%)
21. Formaldehyde3 (11.11%)2 (2.85%)
22. Mercapto mix1 (3.70%)1 (1.42%)
23. Thimerosal4 (14.81%)5 (7.14%)
24. Thiuram mix1 (3.70%)1 (1.42%)
25. Tixocortol-21-pivalate01 (1.42%)

IPPD, N-Isopropyl-N-pheynyl-4-phenylenediamine; MBT, 2-Mercaptobenzothiazole; PPD, p-phenylenediamine; PTBP, 4-tert-butylphenol-formaldehyde resin.

P value < .05.

Comparison between the mask group and control group in the patch test results IPPD, N-Isopropyl-N-pheynyl-4-phenylenediamine; MBT, 2-Mercaptobenzothiazole; PPD, p-phenylenediamine; PTBP, 4-tert-butylphenol-formaldehyde resin. P value < .05. These results would infer that the chemical components of disposable masks and residues of disinfectants or cosmetics can cause allergic and irritant reactions. Further, given the occlusive, humid environment within a facial mask, it can be assumed that these substances could more easily penetrate the skin and cause facial dermatitis. Since the COVID-19 pandemic started, our living and medical environments have significantly changed, as have the frequency and types of exposure to allergens. , Consequently, patch tests are essential for determining the correct diagnosis in patients with facial dermatitis. Our study could be a useful index for determining the causative allergens in patients with facial dermatitis induced by disposable masks.

Conflicts of interest

None disclosed.
  4 in total

1.  Facial Dermatitis in Male Patients Referred for Patch Testing: Retrospective Analysis of North American Contact Dermatitis Group Data, 1994 to 2016.

Authors:  Erin M Warshaw; Jamie P Schlarbaum; Howard I Maibach; Jonathan I Silverberg; James S Taylor; Amber R Atwater; Margo J Reeder; Joel G DeKoven; Melanie D Pratt; Vincent A DeLeo; Kathryn A Zug; Anthony F Fransway; Donald V Belsito; Toby Mathias; Joseph F Fowler; James G Marks; Denis Sasseville; Matthew J Zirwas
Journal:  JAMA Dermatol       Date:  2020-01-01       Impact factor: 10.282

2.  Surgical mask dermatitis caused by formaldehyde (releasers) during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Authors:  Olivier Aerts; Ella Dendooven; Kenn Foubert; Sofie Stappers; Michal Ulicki; Julien Lambert
Journal:  Contact Dermatitis       Date:  2020-06-16       Impact factor: 6.600

Review 3.  Patch-test results using Korean standard series: a 5-year retrospective review.

Authors:  Dong Soo Yu; Hyun Jee Kim; Yong Gyu Park; Jung Min Bae; Jin-Wou Kim; Young Bok Lee
Journal:  J Dermatolog Treat       Date:  2016-11-13       Impact factor: 3.359

4.  Mask-induced contact dermatitis in handling COVID-19 outbreak.

Authors:  Zhen Xie; Yu-Xin Yang; Hao Zhang
Journal:  Contact Dermatitis       Date:  2020-05-26       Impact factor: 6.600

  4 in total
  3 in total

1.  What type of face mask should we choose in coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic considering photoprotective effectiveness?

Authors:  Sung Jin Park; Jun Hyuk Cho; Min Seok Ham; Soo Hong Seo; Hyo Hyun Ahn; Dai Hyun Kim
Journal:  Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed       Date:  2022-03-30       Impact factor: 3.254

2.  The change in the frequency and severity of facial dermatoses and complaints in healthcare workers during the COVID-19.

Authors:  Nur Cihan Cosansu; Gulcan Yuksekal; Omer Kutlu; Mutlu Umaroglu; Mahizer Yaldız; Bahar Sevimli Dikicier
Journal:  J Cosmet Dermatol       Date:  2022-06-02       Impact factor: 2.189

Review 3.  Facial dermatoses induced by face masks: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.

Authors:  Lim Yi Shen Justin; Yik Weng Yew
Journal:  Contact Dermatitis       Date:  2022-08-18       Impact factor: 6.419

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.