Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a common, chronic, inflammatory skin disease affecting Australians of all ages, races, ethnicities, and social classes. Significant physical, psychosocial, and financial burdens to both individuals and Australian communities have been demonstrated. This narrative review highlights knowledge gaps for AD in Australian skin of colour. We searched PubMed, Wiley Online Library, and Cochrane Library databases for review articles, systematic reviews, and cross-sectional and observational studies relating to AD in Australia for skin of colour and for different ethnicities. Statistical data from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare and the Australian Bureau of Statistics was collected. In recent years, there has been substantially increased awareness of and research into skin infections, such as scabies and impetigo, among various Australian subpopulations. Many such infections disproportionately affect First Nations Peoples. However, data for AD itself in these groups are limited. There is also little written regarding AD in recent, racially diverse immigrants with skin of colour. Areas for future research include AD epidemiology and AD phenotypes for First Nations Peoples and AD trajectories for non-Caucasian immigrants. We also note the evident disparity in both the level of understanding and the management standards of AD between urban and remote communities in Australia. This discrepancy relates to a relative lack of healthcare resources in marginalised communities. First Nations Peoples in particular experience socioeconomic disadvantage, have worse health outcomes, and experience healthcare inequality in Australia. Barriers to effective AD management must be identified and responsibly addressed for socioeconomically disadvantaged and remote-living communities to achieve healthcare equity.
A woman with metastatic melanoma was treated with immunotherapy induction with ipilimumab and nivolumab and radiotherapy to liver metastases. The patient deteriorated shortly thereafter, becoming febrile and hypotensive and requiring admission to the intensie care unit (ICU) for inotrope support. Failure to respond to antibiotics and a negative septic screen prompted further investigation, which ultimately led to a diagnosis of haemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH). The patient improved on high dose steroids and was discharged home. Months later, in the context of progressive melanoma, the patient was re-challenged with nivolumab monotherapy and subsequently experienced recurrence of HLH, confirming the aetiology as being immunotherapy related. This case serves as a reminder to consider HLH where there are fevers of unknown origin in an unwell patient receiving immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy and also highlights immunotherapy as a potential cause for HLH, which has rarely been reported in the literature to date.
Approximately 6% of those with COVID‐19 will experience cutaneous manifestations. Examining data from this cohort could provide useful information to help with the management of COVID‐19. To that end, we conducted a systematic review primarily to assess rash morphologies associated with COVID‐19 and their relationship with disease severity. Secondary outcomes include demographics, distribution, dermatological symptoms, timeline, diagnostic method and medication history. The literature was searched for all patients with skin manifestations thought to be related to suspected or confirmed COVID‐19. Patients with a history of dermatological, rheumatological or occupational skin disorders were excluded. Of the 2056 patients selected, the most common morphologies were chilblain‐like lesions (54.2%), maculopapular (13.6%) and urticaria (8.3%). Chilblain‐like lesions were more frequent in the younger population (mean age 21.5, standard deviation ± 10.8) and were strongly linked with milder disease, not requiring an admission (odds ratio [OR] 35.36 [95% confidence interval {CI} 23.58, 53.03]). Conversely, acro‐ischaemia and livedo reticularis were associated with worse outcomes, including a need for ICU (OR 34.01 [95% CI 16.62, 69.57] and OR 5.57 [95% CI 3.02, 10.30], respectively) and mortality (OR 25.66 [95% CI 10.83, 60.79] and OR 10.71 [95% CI 4.76, 24.13], respectively). Acral lesions were the most common site (83.5%). 35.1% experienced pruritus, 16.4% had pain and 4.7% reported a burning sensation. 34.1% had asymptomatic lesions. Rash was the only symptom in 20.9% and occurred before or alongside systemic symptoms in 12.4%. 28.3% had a positive polymerase chain reaction nasopharyngeal swab and 5.4% had positive antibodies, while 21.9% tested negative and 45.1% were not tested. In conclusion, COVID‐19 causes a variety of rashes, which may cause symptoms and add to morbidity. Rash type could be helpful in determining COVID‐19 prognosis.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.