Authors: Saad Shams, Sawai Singh Rathore, et. al. Dermatol Ther. 2021 Mar-Apr; 34(2)e14788. 202Feb2. doi: 10.1111/dth.14788PMCID: PMC7995033PMID: 33481314
Abstract
In this systematic review, we anticipated in summarizing clinical features, histopathological hallmarks, and possible pathology behind the maculopapular skin eruptions occurring in Covid‐19 patients. A literature search was executed using MEDLINE/PubMed and Embase databases for articles published till 20 November 2020. All eligible articles including observational studies, case reports, and case series reporting the maculopapular skin lesion in Covid‐19 patients were included. Data were obtained for 354 Covid‐19 patients presenting with maculopapular lesions from 40 studies. The mean age of these patients was 53 years, and with 42% of them being male. These maculopapular lesions differed considerably in terms of distribution and appearance, ranging from diffuse erythematous maculopapular lesions to scattered erythematous macules coalescing into papules to maculopapular lesions in plaques. The mean duration of the lesion was 8 days. These lesions were frequently localized on trunks and extremities. Superficial perivascular dermatitis with lymphocytic infiltrate was a histopathological hallmark of these lesions. As these skin lesions may have a possible association with diagnosis, management, prognosis, and severity of the disease, all health practitioners need to be well acquainted with these Covid‐19 skin lesions. Also, in the middle of this worldwide pandemic, early identification of this eruption may help manage this infection’s further spread.
1. INTRODUCTION
A new infectious pathogen called severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS‐CoV‐2) came into view in Wuhan, China, in December 2019 1 . It was associated with an unconventional cause of pneumonia. The disease was later entitled Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid‐19). Following then it has quickly disseminated across the globe. Due to its asymptomatic transmission, high infectivity rate, and high mortality rate among the elderly and immunocompromised, it was declared a pandemic by the world health organization on March 11. By through end of November, 63 million cases of Covid‐19 have been documented worldwide, accompanied by 1.34 million deaths. 2
SARS‐CoV‐2 is a β‐Coronavirus, which is an enveloped, positive‐sense, single‐stranded RNA virus. 3 SARS‐CoV‐2 enters the human cell via protein receptor angiotensin‐converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and causes infection. Despite the fact that this virus predominantly targets the respiratory tract, several human tissues, including gastrointestinal and skin tissue have been discovered to have ACE2 expression, this may contribute to dermatologic finding present in Covid‐19. 4
The clinical manifestation of Covid‐19 is pretty diverse, extending from mild symptoms to critical lethal respiratory failure, septic shock, ultimately to multiorgan failure. The most common clinical symptoms of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection include fever, dry cough, fatigue, sore throat, and dyspnea, and headache; less commonly, vomiting, diarrhea, and anosmia or ageusia. 1 Besides these typical symptoms, new symptoms including a range of cutaneous manifestations have been recorded globally. The first record of cutaneous signs was documented in a study from China, in this study out of 1099 Covid‐19 patients only, 2(0.2%) presented with cutaneous manifestation. 5 Later another report from Italy reported a higher prevalence of about 21% of the patient out of 88 presenting with cutaneous manifestation. 6 Subsequently, many case reports and case series have been published reporting this manifestation in Covid‐19 patients. These cutaneous lesions vary greatly in terms of clinical features of which maculopapular eruptions seem to be one of the most common lesions occurring in about 22% to 47% of Covid‐19 cases presenting with cutaneous manifestation. 7 , 8 , 9
As these lesions may provide a sooner and more reliable diagnosis and management of the infection, It is important for all health practitioners to be well acquainted with these Covid‐19 skin lesions. Also, in the middle of this worldwide pandemic, early identification of this eruption may also help in managing the further spread of this infection. In this systematic review, we aim to summarize clinical features, histopathological hallmarks, and possible pathology behind the maculopapular skin lesion occurring in Covid‐19 patients.
2. METHODS
The existing systematic review is accomplished and reported in conjunction with preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta‐analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. 10
2.1. Search strategy
A literature search was executed using MEDLINE/PubMed and Embase databases for articles published from December 2020 till 20 November 2020. Following search terms were used, ([Coronavirus] or [Covid‐19] or [SARS‐CoV‐2] and [skin] or [cutaneous] or [rash] or [maculopapular]OR [exanthem]). Studies from all over the world without any language constraints were included. On the basis of the title and abstract, eligibility for the article was determined. Reference lists of the incorporated studies and associated literature were manually inspected for additional qualifying studies. PRISMA flow diagram is illustrated in Figure Figure11.
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta‐analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram
2.2. Eligibility criteria
All eligible articles including observational studies, case reports, and case series reporting the maculopapular skin lesion in Covid‐19 patients were included. Articles like review articles, hypothesis articles, and commentaries were discarded.
2.3. Study selection and data extraction
The title and abstract of studies from formerly investigated databases were evaluated by three authors (S. T., N. K.). These authors ascertained studies, on the basis of predetermined eligibility criteria. From these selected studies, three authors (S. S. R., P. A., M. S.) retrieved data manually. For every report, subsequent details were extracted, author, country of origin, study design, sample size, mean age, clinical features of skin lesions, mean duration, location of skin lesion, sign, and symptoms, laboratory findings, histopathological findings, treatment of Covid‐19, and outcome of the lesion.
3. RESULT
A total of 354 patients with Maculopapular eruption were included from 40 studies. The average age of these patients was 53 years(which ranged from 6 months to 84 years) with 42% of them being male. Most of the published cases were from Spain (224 patients,63%) followed by France (33 patients, 9.3%), Italy (31 patients, 8.7%), Turkey (14 patients, 3.9%), United States (5 patients, 1.4%), India (3 patients, 0.8%), Thailand (2 patients, 0.5%).There was one case each from the UK, Portugal, Russia, Poland, Japan. 38(10.7%) patients were from the multinational registry. Considering many cutaneous manifestation cases might not have been documented in the literature for numerous reasons, these data are not consistent with the actual cutaneous lesion occurrence in Covid‐19 patients from different countries. Table Table11 compiles the study characteristics and patient demographics information.
TABLE 1
Study characteristics and patients demographics
| First author | Location | Study type | Covid‐19 status (diagnostic technique) | Sample size(n) a | Mean age (years) and gender (male or female) | Cases having maculopapular eruptions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ahouach et al 17 | France | Case report | Positive (PCR) | 1 | 57/F | 1 |
| Diaz‐Guimaraens et al 13 | Spain | Case report | Positive (PCR) | 1 | 48/M | 1 |
| Galvan Casas et al 8 | Spain | Retrospective study | Positive (n/m): 122/176 (69.3%), suspected: 54/176 (30.6%) | 375 | 55·3/44% Male | 176 |
| Gianotti et al 25 | Italy | Case series | Positive (PCR) | 3 | 68/33% Male | 3 |
| Hunt et al 39 | United States | Case report | Positive (PCR) | 1 | 20/M | 1 |
| Najarian et al 40 | United States | Case report | Positive (PCR) | 1 | 58/M | 1 |
| Sachdeva et al 30 | Italy | Case series | Positive (PCR) | 3 | 74/100% Female | 2 |
| Askin et al 29 | Turkey | Cohort | Positive (PCR): 34/52 (65.4%) negative: 18/52 (34.6%) | 52 | N/M | 12 |
| Dalal et al 20 | India | Cohort | Positive (PCR) | 102 | 49/66% Male | 3 |
| Herrero‐Moyano et al 21 | Spain | Case series | Positive (n/m) | 8 | 72.2/50% Male | 8 |
| Reymundo et al 38 | Spain | Case series | Positive (PCR) | 7 | 66.57/28.6% Male | 7 |
| Rubio‐Muniz et al 28 | Spain | Case series | Positive PCR: 6/10 (60%) positive radiology: 3/10 (30%) negative PCR: 1/10 (10%) | 34 | 53/40% Male | 10 |
| Bouaziz et al 41 | France | Case series | Positive (PCR) | 14 | N/M | 4 |
| Recalcati et al 6 | Italy | Case series | Positive (n/m) | 18 | N/M | 14 |
| Mahe et al 22 | France | Case report | Positive (PCR) | 1 | 64/F | 1 |
| Hedou et al 42 | France | Prospective study | Positive (PCR) | 103 | N/M | 2 |
| Morey‐Olivé et al 43 | Spain | Case report | Positive (PCR) | 1 | 6/Male | 1 |
| Rivera‐Oyola et al 14 | United States | Case report | Positive (PCR) | 1 | 60/Male | 1 |
| Avellana Moreno et al 15 | Spain | Case report | Positive (PCR) | 1 | 32/Female | 1 |
| Jimenez‐Cauhe et al 16 | Spain | Case report | Positive (n/m) | 1 | 84/Female | 1 |
| Gaspari et al 23 | Italy | Case series | Positive (n/m) | 20 | N/M | 9 |
| Rosell‐Diaz et al 27 | Spain | Case series | Positive (PCR) | 12 | 66.3/50% Male | 12 |
| Olisova et al 44 | Russia | Case report | Positive (PCR) | 1 | 12/Female | 1 |
| Klimach et al 18 | UK | Case report | Positive (PCR) | 1 | 1/Male | 1 |
| Jones et al 31 | United States | Case report | Positive (n/m) | 1 | 6 mo/Female | 1 |
| De Masson et al 24 | France | Retrospective study | 277 | 29/48% Male | 25 | |
| Freeman et al 9 | Multinational | Case series from an international registry | Positive (PCR):135(78.9%), positive (serology);19(11.1%), positive (unspecified testing):17(10%) | 171 | N/M | 38 |
| Carbrera–Hernandez et al 45 | Spain | Case report | Positive (PCR) | 1 | 58/Female | 1 |
| Paolino et al 19 | Italy | Case report | Positive (n/m) | 1 | 37/Female | 1 |
| Zengarini et al 46 | Italy | Case report | Positive (PCR) | 1 | 67/Female | 1 |
| Mendez‐Maestro et al 47 | Spain | Cohort | Positive (PCR or serology) | 75 | N/M | 4 |
| Öksüm Solak et al 48 | Turkey | Case report | Positive (radiological) | 1 | 24/Female | 1 |
| Farabi et al 49 | Turkey | Case report | Positive (PCR) | 1 | 55/Female | 1 |
| Rossi et al 50 | Italy | Case report | Positive(PCR) | 1 | 34/Male | 1 |
| Mazan et al 51 | Poland | Case report | Positive (PCR) | 1 | 35/Male | 1 |
| Goncalves et al 37 | Portugal | Case report | Positive (PCR) | 1 | 57/Male | 1 |
| Motahashi et al 52 | Japan | Case report | Positive (PCR) | 1 | 52/Male | 1 |
| Punyaratabandhu et al 53 | Thailand | Case series | Positive(PCR) | 2 | 51/100 %Female | 2 |
| Lopez et al 26 | Spain | Case report | Positive (PCR) | 1 | 31/Female | 1 |
| Beaupre et al 54 | United States | Case report | Positive (PCR) | 1 | 42/Female | 1 |
Abbreviations: Covid‐19, Coronavirus disease 2019; PCR, polymerase chain reaction; N/M, not mentioned.
a Sample size denotes total COVID‐19 infected patients in a each study.
3.1. Clinical characteristics of maculopapular lesion
Maculopapular lesions are one of the most frequent skin manifestations observed during the Covid‐19 pandemic. Adverse drug reactions or viral infections(eg, HHV‐6, HIV‐1, HHV‐4) are important triggers for this type of lesion. 11 When caused by viral or bacterial infections they are often linked with fever, myalgia, headache, and fatigue. Ebstein Barr virus infection, Herpes, scarlet fever, Measles, Ebola, Zika, and HIV are common viral infections associated with maculopapular rash. 12 The maculopapular eruption is prominent on the chest, back, abdomen, and extremities and can range from confluent lesions to erythematous, scattered blanching rash.
Article stating the association of maculopapular rash with Covid‐19 infection has diverse clinical depiction. Distribution and appearance of maculopapular eruption ranged from diffuse erythematous maculopapular lesions to scattered erythematous macules coalescing into papules to maculopapular lesions in plaques to erythematous macules and plaques with a violaceous targetoid appearance. Some maculopapular lesions associated with Covid‐19 were marked by a petechial portion. 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 Detailed clinical characteristics features of the lesion from each study are compiled in Table Table22.
TABLE 2
The clinical characteristic feature of the maculopapular lesions
| Author | Clinical features of maculopapular lesions | Mean duration of the lesion | Location of lesions | Relation to the onset of other Covid‐19 symptoms | Outcome of lesion | Treatments for Covid‐19 | Signs, symptoms, laboratory, and radiological findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ahouach et al 17 | Diffuse erythematous blanching maculopapular lesions, with the burning sensation only on the palm | 9 d | Trunk and limbs | After | Slowly resolved | Paracetamol | Fever (39°C) and dry cough |
| Diaz‐Guimaraens et al 13 | Mildly pruritic, confluent erythematous macules, papules, and petechiae in symmetric periflexural distribution | 5 d | Buttocks and legs | 3 d after | Slowly resolved | Hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir, and azithromycin | Fever (up to 39°C), pleuritic chest pain, and shortness of breath. Increased C‐reactive protein and D‐dimer level, ground‐glass opacities on chest radiograph |
| Galvan Casas et al 8 | Maculopapular eruptions with itching (99 patients), pain (4 patients), and burning (9 patients). Few maculopapular lesions were interpreted as resembling pityriasis rosea. | 8.6 d | Generalized | Before‐3 patients, At onset‐108, After −60 patients | Slowly resolved | Paracetamol, NSAIDS, Chloroquine, Hydroxychloroquine Lopinavir/ritonavir, Tocilizumab, systemic corticosteroid, Azithromycin | Fever, Cough, dyspnea, asthenia, headache, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, anosmia, Pneumonia |
| Gianotti et al 25 | Widespread erythematous macules with the presence of pruritis in one patient | 7.7 d | Trunk‐3 patients, Arms‐2 patients, Legs‐1 patient | Before (1 patient), After (2 patients) | Slowly resolved | Lopinavir/ritonavir, heparin and levofloxacin, Ceftriaxone and azithromycin, Hydroxychloroquine | Fever, headache, cough and arthralgias, elevated transaminase and fibrinogen level in one patient |
| Hunt et al 39 | Non‐pruritic, Diffuse morbilliform maculopapular rash sparing the face | N/M | Trunk and limbs | At onset | N/M | N/M | Fever, pneumonia, elevated C‐reactive proteins |
| Najarian et al 40 | A pruritic diffuse morbilliform rash | 2 d | Limbs, shoulders, trunk, chest, and abdomen | After | Slowly resolved | Azithromycin and benzonatate | Cough, pain in legs and hands, no fever |
| Sachdeva et al 30 | A maculopapular pruritic rash appearing like that of Grover disease in one patient while Morbilliform rash and hemorrhagic macular rash on legs in another | N/M | Trunk and limbs | After in one patient while at onset in another | Slowly resolved | Lopinavir/ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine and subcutaneous low molecular weight heparin | Cough, fever, lymphadenopathy, arthralgia, headache, and myalgia |
| Askin et al 29 | Diffused Maculopapular rash, with one of the lesions on the trunk resembling pityriasis rosea | N/M | Trunk (most of the patients), on the extremities in one patient | N/M | N/M | N/M | N/M |
| Dalal et al 20 | Maculopapular rash with centripetal distribution | N/M | Trunk and limbs | After | Slowly resolved | Hydroxychloroquine, Azithromycin | Sore throat, cough, fatigue, headache, fever, cough and, dyspnoea |
| Herrero‐Moyano et al 21 | Indistinct erythematous patches to coalescent maculopapules, some with a violaceous center, in one patient progressed into pustules and desquamation | 12 d | Trunk‐7 patients,Flexures‐4 patients,Proximal extremities‐2 patients,Face‐2 patients | N/M | N/M | Hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir, ceftriaxone, metamizole, linezolid, piperacillin‐tazobactam, amiodarone, furosemide | N/M |
| Reymundo et al 38 | Diffused maculopapular rash | 11 d | Trunk‐7 patients,Proximal upper limbinvolvement‐6 patients,Lower limb involvement‐1 patient | After | Slowly resolved | Systemic corticosteroid | Pneumonia |
| Rubio‐Muniz et al 28 | Erythematic Maculopapular exanthems | N/M | N/M | After | N/M | N/M | Pneumonia in 8 patients |
| Bouaziz et al 41 | Maculopapular exanthema | N/M | N/M | N/M | N/M | N/M | N/M |
| Recalcati et al 6 | Mild itching or asymptomatic rash | N/M | Mainly trunk | N/M | Resolved a few days later | N/M | N/M |
| Mahe et al 22 | An erythematous rash resembling as reminiscent of symmetrical drug‐related intertriginous and flexural exanthema (SDRIFE) | 5 d | Trunk and Flexors | N/M | Resolved a few days later | Paracetamol | Fever (up to 40°C) and asthenia |
| Hedou et al 42 | Maculopapular rash with Itching | N/M | Trunk and neck that gradually spanning to the cheeks and upper and lower extremities | N/M | Resolved a few days later | N/M | N/M |
| Morey‐Olivé et al 43 | Erythematous, confluent, non‐pruritic maculopapular rash | 5 d | Generalized | After | Resolved a few days later | N/M | The fever increased bilirubin and transaminases |
| Rivera‐Oyola et al 14 | Scattered erythematous macules coalescing into papules, 1 wk later purpuric round macules developed in the areas of the previous eruption. | N/M | Back, bilateral aspect of the flanks, groin, and proximal lower limb | After | Resolved a few days later | None | Low‐grade fever (38°C), myalgias, fatigue, mild cough |
| Avellana Moreno et al 15 | Generalized, itching morbilliform lesions with cephalocaudal growth, characterized as a petechial and erythematous maculopapular lesion. A scaly reaction observed on the fourth day | 4 d | Face, neck, thorax, abdomen, buttocks, extremities, including folds and scalp | After | N/M | N/M | Fever, myalgia, asthenia, cough, and diarrhea |
| Jimenez‐Cauhe et al 16 | Erythematous purpuric, coalescing macules | N/M | Periaxillary regions | After | N/M | Hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir | N/M |
| Gaspari et al 23 | Erythematous exanthema | N/M | Trunk and face | N/M | N/M | N/M | N/M |
| Rosell‐Diaz et al 27 | Generalized maculopapular confluent exanthema with itching | N/M | Generalized | After | Slowly resolved | Hydroxychloroquine, Lopinavir/Ritonavir, ceftriaxone, azithromycin | Fever, pneumonia |
| Olisova et al 44 | Purpuric eruptions and erythematous macula rash and swollen tongue with lingual papillae | 3 d | Upper eyelids, above the eyebrows, and in the temporal region | After | Slowly resolved | Paracetamol | Fever, fatigue, and headache |
| Klimach et al 18 | Erythematous papular rash in the axillae. Multiple painful, erythematous papules on plantar surface of lower limb | 14 d | Axillae and lower extremities | After | N/M | Paracetamol | Fever, myalgia, and headache |
| Jones et al 31 | Blanching, polymorphous maculopapular rash | N/M | Generalized | N/M | N/MN/M | N/M | Fever, limbic sparing conjunctivitis, hand, and feet swelling |
| De Masson et al 24 | Maculopapular rash | N/M | Trunk and limbs 25, face (in 2 patients) | N/M | N/M | N/M | Fever, Respiratory symptoms, Anosmia/ageusia, Digestive symptoms |
| Freeman et al 9 | Pruritic to burning Morbilliform rash | 7 fays | Head and Face‐ 10 patients, Trunk‐ 76 patients, Upper limb‐28, Lower limb‐31 patients and generalized in 4 patients | Before‐3 patients, after‐29, at onset‐5 | N/M | Antimalarial agents, antibiotics, bevacizumab, remdesivir, serpin inhibitors, IL‐6 inhibitors, lopinavir/ritonavir | Fever, cough, shortness of breath, sore throat, headache, myalgia, diarrhea, vomiting. ARDS in 4 patients, thrombotic event in 3 patients |
| Carbrera–Hernandez et al 45 | Confluent, erythematous macules and plaques with a violaceous targetoid appearance | N/M | Trunk and proximal limbs | After | Resolved | Hydroxychloroquine, Azithromycin, Lopinavir/Ritonavir | Fever, cough, dyspnea, myalgia, pneumonia |
| Paolino et al 19 | Erythematous maculopapular lesions without itching | 8 d | Trunk, neck, and face | After | Resolved | Fever (up to 39°C), dry cough, myalgia, and arthralgia | |
| Zengarini et al 46 | Itching erythematous confluent lesion, with ill‐defined border | 7 d | Neck, trunk, and proximal portions of upper and lower extremities | After | Resolved | Hydroxychloroquine, omeprazole, piperacillin/tazobactam, and remdesivi | Dyspnoea and fever |
| Mendez‐Maestro et al 47 | Maculopapular exanthemas | N/M | Trunk and proximal extremities, one case of flexural involvement | After | N/M | Hydroxychloroquine, omeprazole, piperacillin/tazobactam, and remdesivir | N/M |
| Öksüm Solak et al 48 | Erythematous maculopapular, eruptions 1–2 mm in caliber, scattered on the body and separated from each other, while some advanced into patches and plaques | N/M | Generalized, more prominent on extremities | After | N/M | Hydroxychloroquine, oseltamivir, and azithromycin | Cough and fever, Pneumonia, Peripheral ground‐glass appearance in both lungs on CT |
| Farabi et al 49 | Erythematous, maculopapular lesions, 2 to 5 mm diameter lesions | 3 d | Bilateral jawline and periauricular area | After | N/M | Favirapir and hydroxychloroquine | Malaise and fatigue |
| Rossi et al 50 | Non‐pruritic erythematous maculopapular rash | 5 d | Generalized | After | Resolved | Acetaminophen, Hydroxychloroquine, and Tocilizumab | Fever, Dyspnoea |
| Mazan et al 51 | Itchy, maculopapular rash with non‐tender erythematous macules and papules | 10 d | Trunk and arms | After | Resolved | Lopinavir/ritonavir | Optic neuritis |
| Goncalves et al 37 | An erythematous papular rash with irregular borders | N/M | Elbows and Abdomen | After | N/M | None | Fever, cough, diarrhea, and, malaise. Bilateral pulmonary opacities on CT |
| Motahashi et al 52 | Non‐pruritic, miliary‐sized, maculopapular exanthem and erythematous confluent rash | 10 d | Trunk and on the flexor surfaces of limbs | After | resolved | N/M | Fever |
| Punyaratabandhu et al 53 | Itchy maculopapular rash without mucosal involvement | 5 and 7 d | Trunk and extremities | After | resolved | Favipiravir, lopinavir/ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), azithromycin, meropenem and tocilizumab, ertapenem | Fever, cough, and muscle pain |
| Lopez et al 26 | Non‐pruritic erythematous maculopapular lesions in plaques, discretely palpable | 7 d | Abdomen, neckline, the inner side of the arm | Before | N/M | N/M | Fever, cough, and parenchymal consolidation in the right middle lobe on X‐ray |
| Beaupre et al 54 | Non‐blanching maculopapular rash with a concomitant non‐blanching purpuric rash | N/M | Abdomen | After | N/M | N/M | Abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, dyspnoea. diabetic ketoacidosis |
Abbreviations: Covid‐19, Coronavirus disease 2019; N/M, not mentioned.
Many lesions presented with itching while in few cases manifested with a burning sensation. 9 , 17 Two reports described the painful character of maculopapular lesion. 8 , 18 Some reports have identified a substantial craniocaudal development of a rash, involving the folds without the engagement of the palmar‐plantar area and the mucous membranes. 15 , 19 Dalal et al reported the centripetal distribution of maculopapular lesions. 20
These maculopapular eruptions vary based on the location of the lesion and are most commonly localized in trunks and extremities. However, these lesions have been reported from on the head and face, on the neck, and in periaxillary areas. 9 , 15 , 19 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 These eruptions are diverse in the duration for which they remain on the skin. While not all studies commented on the mean length of these cutaneous manifestations, with available data for 249 patients, the lesion’s mean duration was 8 days with a range of 2 to 14 days.
In most of the studies, lesions appeared either at onset or after the onset of other symptoms of Covid‐19 however, few studies reported the appearance of rash 2 to 3 days before the onset of symptoms. 8 , 9 , 25 , 26 One observational study suggested an increased severity of Covid‐19 illness in patients with maculopapular lesions, which was established by a 2% mortality rate recorded in those patients. 8
The most frequent medication used in these patients with maculopapular lesions were hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine (46.5% patients), paracetamol (31.8% patients), lopinavir/ritonavir (28.8% patients), and azithromycin (20.7%). No medication was used in about 16.3% of patients. The summary of medications used across all patients is consolidated in Table Table33.
TABLE 3
Summary of medications used in patients with maculopapular lesion
| Medication | Total patients with available data ‐ 271(%) |
|---|---|
| No medication | 44 (16.3) |
| Paracetamol | 86 (31.8) |
| Hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine | 126 (46.5) |
| Azithromycin | 56 (20.7) |
| Lopinavir/ritonavir | 78 (28.8) |
| Tocilizumab | 15 (5.5) |
| NSAIDS | 16 (5.9) |
| Corticosteroids | 27 (10) |
| Ceftriaxone | 14 (5.1) |
| Piperacillin/tazobactam | 7 (2.6) |
| Antibiotics (other than AZ and CFT) | 13 (4.8) |
| Heparin | 5 (1.8) |
| Interferon‐beta | 9 (3.4) |
| Remdesivir | 7 (2.6) |
3.2. Histopathological hallmarks
From the histological perspective, several features of the maculopapular lesion have been recognized. Maculopapular lesions exhibit superficial perivascular dermatitis with lymphocytic infiltrate and dilated vessels in the papillary and mid dermis with neutrophils, eosinophils, and nuclear debris. Epidermis revealed dispersed foci of hydropic changes, accompanied by minimum acanthosis, subcorneal pustules, slight spongiosis, Basal cell vacuolation, and foci of parakeratosis. One study by Rosell‐Diaz et al showed a lichenoid pattern with eosinophils’ presence on biopsy of skin lesions. 27 Table Table44 summarizes histopathological features reported from different studies.
TABLE 4
Histopathological features of the maculopapular lesion
| Author | Histopathological hallmarks |
|---|---|
| Ahouach et al 17 | Slight spongiosis and basal cell vacuolation and moderate perivascular lymphocytic infiltrate |
| Diaz‐Guimaraens et al 13 | Superficial perivascular lymphocytic infiltrate with a surplus of red cell extravasation and focal dermal papillary edema, accompanying by focal parakeratosis and isolated dyskeratotic cells |
| Gianotti et al 25 | Superficial perivascular dermatitis with slight lymphocytic exocytosis, patchy, swollen thrombosed vessels in the mid dermis with neutrophils, eosinophils, and nuclear debris |
| Herrero‐Moyano et al 21 | Subcorneal pustules, spongiosis, papillary edema, dense perivascular and neutrophilic interstitial infiltrate with the decent presence of eosinophils |
| Reymundo et al 38 | Mild superficial perivascular lymphocytic infiltrate and spongiosis |
| Rubio‐Muniz et al 28 | In early‐onset cases‐moderate epidermal spongiosis and perivascular lymphocytic infiltrate with eosinophils in the dermis. In late‐onset, cases‐perivascular lymphocytic infiltrate and histiocytes within collagen fibers devoid of mucin deposits |
| Rivera‐Oyola et al 14 | Mild perivascular infiltrate with paramount of mononuclear cells around the superficial blood vessels, epidermis exhibited dispersed foci of hydropic changes, accompanying with minimal acanthosis, minor spongiosis, and foci of parakeratosis |
| Gaspari et al 23 | Superficial perivascular dermatitis with lymphocytic infiltrate, a dilated vessel in the papillary and mid dermis |
| Rosell‐Diaz et al 27 | Superficial perivascular inflammation with eosinophils in one patient and the other displayed a lichenoid pattern with eosinophils |
| Freeman et al 9 | Interface dermatitis in one patient |
| Carbrera–Hernandez et al 45 | Mixed interface pattern with dilated vessels filled with neutrophils, recurrent blood extravasation, and dispersed necrotic keratinocytes |
| Zengarini et al 46 | Superficial perivascular lymphocytic infiltrate, a remarkably dilated vessel in the papillary and mid dermis |
Rubio‐Muniz et al described the histology of rashes according to the onset of lesion. Early‐onset lesions exhibited perivascular lymphocytic infiltrate with eosinophils in the dermis with moderate epidermal spongiosis. In comparison, perivascular lymphocytic infiltrate and histiocytes contained in collagen fibers were seen in the histology of late‐onset cases. These late‐appearing lesions lack mucin deposits. 28
4. DISCUSSION
The consequences of the SARS‐CoV‐2 pandemic are severe, as it had health‐related, economic, and social impacts on millions of peoples around the globe. Owing to asymptomatic transmission, high infectivity rate, and droplet infection of SARS‐COV‐2, it has become horribly challenging to control this virus. Dermatological interpretation of Covid‐19 originally thought not to be very important has proved to be diverse and sophisticated. Regardless of rapidly evolving research, the number of skin manifestations of Covid‐19 remains largely unexplained. Owing to the absence of large‐scale prospective studies, the true prevalence of skin manifestations in Covid‐19 is hard to interpret. Incidents of dermatological lesions in Covid‐19 highly vary according to published literature and extent from 0.6% to 20.4%. 5 , 6
Maculopapular eruptions seem to be one of the most common cutaneous manifestations occurring in Covid‐19 patients. 8 Although there are reports of maculopapular lesions associated with Covid‐19 patients in published literature, they remain to be appraised systematically. This systematic review aims to fill that gap, by compiling the characteristics of 354 patients from 40 studies originating from 12 different countries. Investigators have variedly characterized macular‐papular lesions in Covid‐19 patients as erythematic, purpuric rash, and morbilliform. This lesion appears after the onset of other symptoms of Covid‐19 in most cases, however, few studies reported the appearance of eruptions before any other symptoms. Since Covid‐19 infection has the propensity to remain asymptomatic for 10 to 14 days, these signs can assist in early detection of Covid‐19 and prevent the spread of this highly contagious illness.
As stated in the result, these lesions vary in distribution and appearance. Other than that, a few peculiar patterns of the maculopapular lesion have been reported. Few studies reported perifollicular lesions coupled with scaling and confluence, which may lead to an appearance similar to pityriasis rosea. 8 , 29 Similarly, In a study by Galvan Casas et al few patients exhibited infiltrated papules on the extremities, principally the dorsum of the hands, that resemble pseudovesicular just like erythema elevatum diutinum or erythema multiforme. 8 Sachdeva et al reported a Maculopapular pruritic rash resembling that of Grover disease in one patient. 30 One of the studies on Covid‐19 patient‐reported polymorphous maculopapular rash linked with fever, conjunctivitis, raised tongue papillae, dry cracked lips, swelling of the hands, and lower limbs satisfying the criteria for Kawasaki disease. 31 Mahe et al described an erythematous rash involving flexors as similar to symmetrical drug‐related intertriginous and flexural exanthema (SDRIFE). 22 Further studies are needed to undertake to explain these lesions as, considering the diverse morphological representations, they are potentially a variegated collection of manifestations.
In Covid‐19 patients, pathological pathways behind the skin lesions are poorly recognized. According to published literature, the Pathological mechanism behind Skin manifestation in SARS‐COV‐2 may be categorized into:
- An immune response to viral nucleotides, clinical characteristics like viral exanthem.
- Secondary cutaneous lesions expedited by the systemic effect of Covid‐19, in particular, vasculitis and thrombotic vasculopathy.
- Due to adverse drug reactions.
SARS‐CoV‐2 is a single‐stranded RNA virus consisting of 16 nonstructural proteins designated as NSP1 to NSP1 with unique functions in the replication of Coronaviruses (CoVs). For instance, NSP3 can block the innate immune reaction of the host and facilitate cytokine expression. Similarly, interferon (IFN) signaling is inhibited by NSP5 and NSP16 prevents MAD5 (melanoma differentiation‐associated gene 5) recognition, damping innate immunity. 32 Some investigations have recognized SARS‐like viral particles and SARS‐CoV RNA in T lymphocytes indicating direct T cell viral infection. 33 This direct T cell infection may lead to a strong immune response and may be responsible for skin lesions occurring Covid‐19 illness.
Hyperactive immune responses in Covid‐19 patients can contribute to the induction “cytokine storm” (in particular, IL‐6); these cytokines could enter the skin and trigger dermal dendritic cells, lymphocytes, macrophages, mast cells, and neutrophils, and can assist in the development of lesions such as maculopapular rash. 34 This representation of cutaneous lesion has been described earlier in diseases having an overactive immune response and excessive cytokine release (example, systemic lupus erythematosus, adult Still’s a disease, antiphospholipid syndrome). 35
Several drug therapies have been used to manage Covid‐19 patients. A couple of these drugs may be involved in maculopapular eruptions. A sub‐analysis done on the study by Galvan Casas et al reported that 78% of maculopapular lesions had concurrent drug consumption. 36 The most common drug taken by these patients was chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine, followed by lopinavir/ritonavir, tocilizumab, and azithromycin. 36 A case report by Mazan et al described the development of Itchy, maculopapular rash with non‐tender erythematous macules and papules following 10 days of lopinavir/ritonavir administration. 37 In spite of this, in case series with the patients taking no new medications, the maculopapular rash has been recognized, hinting that these lesions may not just be associated with drugs. 38
As can be observed, Covid‐19 related maculopapular rash can occur in various appearances, affect patients of all ages and genders, and affect any part of the body. For maculopapular lesions, topical corticosteroid and moisturization of skin remain the primary mode of treatment. Systemic corticosteroid therapy may be needed in extensive involvement of the body surface.
In this literature review, one of the limitations that must be taken into account is that since research related to Covid‐19 and skin manifestation is rapidly evolving, these reports are small‐scale studies based on early restricted understanding, rather than large‐size clinical trials, hence these data may not be decisive and relevant for the entire population. Further large‐scale studies, addressing maculopapular eruptions and their clinical characteristics and pathology behind them are warranted.
5. CONCLUSION
In this article, a systematic review of the cutaneous maculopapular eruptions associated with SARS‐COV‐2 is provided. Covid‐19 patients most typically have respiratory symptoms, but multiple organ involvement with various cutaneous signs like maculopapular rash may occur. These maculopapular lesions differ considerably in terms of distribution and appearance, ranging from diffuse erythematous maculopapular lesions to scattered erythematous macules coalescing into papules to maculopapular lesions in plaques and may resemble other well‐known dermatological disorders. Even though these results do not suggest that Covid‐19 is the absolute cause of these maculopapular eruptions, they indicate these lesions should be regarded in the context of possible presentations associated with this illness. As these lesions may have a possible association with diagnosis, management, prognosis, and severity of the disease, all health practitioners need to be well acquainted with these Covid‐19 skin lesions. Also, in the middle of this worldwide pandemic, early identification of this eruption may help manage this infection’s further spread.
REFERENCES
1. Zhu N, Zhang D, Wang W, et al. A novel coronavirus from patients with pneumonia in China, 2019. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(8):727‐733. 10.1056/NEJMoa2001017. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
2. Dong E, Du H, Gardner L. An interactive web‐based dashboard to track COVID‐19 in real time. Lancet Infect Dis. 2020;20(5):533‐534. 10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30120-1. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
3. Guo YR, Cao QD, Hong ZS, et al. The origin, transmission and clinical therapies on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) outbreak ‐ an update on the status. Mil Med Res. 2020;7(1):11. 10.1186/s40779-020-00240-0. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
4. Li MY, Li L, Zhang Y, Wang XS. Expression of the SARS‐CoV‐2 cell receptor gene ACE2 in a wide variety of human tissues. Infect Dis Poverty. 2020;9(1):45. 10.1186/s40249-020-00662-x. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
5. Guan WJ, Ni ZY, Hu Y, et al. Clinical characteristics of coronavirus disease 2019 in China. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(18):1708‐1720. 10.1056/NEJMoa2002032. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
6. Recalcati S. Cutaneous manifestations in COVID‐19: a first perspective. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2020;34(5):212‐213. 10.1111/jdv.16387. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
7. Jia JL, Kamceva M, Rao SA, Linos E. Cutaneous manifestations of COVID‐19: a preliminary review. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020;83(2):687‐690. 10.1016/j.jaad.2020.05.059. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
8. Galván Casas C, Català A, Carretero Hernández G, et al. Classification of the cutaneous manifestations of COVID‐19: a rapid prospective nationwide consensus study in Spain with 375 cases. Br J Dermatol. 2020;183(1):71‐77. 10.1111/bjd.19163. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
9. Freeman EE, McMahon DE, Lipoff JB, et al. The spectrum of COVID‐19‐associated dermatologic manifestations: an international registry of 716 patients from 31 countries. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020;83(4):1118‐1129. 10.1016/j.jaad.2020.06.1016. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
10. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group . Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta‐analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009;339:2535. 10.1136/bmj.b2535. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
11. Ely JW, Seabury SM. The generalized rash: part I. Differential diagnosis. Am Fam Physician. 2010;81(6):726‐734. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12. Kang JH. Febrile illness with skin rashes. Infect Chemother. 2015;47(3):155‐166. 10.3947/ic.2015.47.3.155. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
13. Diaz‐Guimaraens B, Dominguez‐Santas M, Suarez‐Valle A, et al. Petechial skin rash associated with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection. JAMA Dermatol. 2020;156(7):820‐822. 10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.1741. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
14. Rivera‐Oyola R, Koschitzky M, Printy R, et al. Dermatologic findings in 2 patients with COVID‐19. JAAD Case Rep. 2020;6(6):537‐539. 10.1016/j.jdcr.2020.04.027. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
15. Avellana Moreno R, Estela Villa LM, Avellana Moreno V, Estela Villa C, Moreno Aparicio MA, Avellana Fontanella JA. Cutaneous manifestation of COVID‐19 in images: a case report. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2020;34(7):307‐309. 10.1111/jdv.16531. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
16. Jimenez‐Cauhe J, Ortega‐Quijano D, Prieto‐Barrios M, Moreno‐Arrones OM, Fernandez‐Nieto D. Reply to “COVID‐19 can present with a rash and be mistaken for dengue”: petechial rash in a patient with COVID‐19 infection. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020;83(2):141‐142. 10.1016/j.jaad.2020.04.016. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
17. Ahouach B, Harent S, Ullmer A, et al. Cutaneous lesions in a patient with COVID‐19: are they related? Br J Dermatol. 2020;183(2):31. 10.1111/bjd.19168. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
18. Klimach A, Evans J, Stevens J, Creasey N. Rash as a presenting complaint in a child with COVID‐19. Pediatr Dermatol. 2020;37(5):966‐967. 10.1111/pde.14257. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
19. Paolino G, Canti V, Mercuri SR, Rovere Querini P, Candiani M, Pasi F. Diffuse cutaneous manifestation in a new mother with COVID‐19 (SARS‐Cov‐2). Int J Dermatol. 2020;59(7):874‐875. 10.1111/ijd.14919. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
20. Dalal A, Jakhar D, Agarwal V, Beniwal R. Dermatological findings in SARS‐CoV‐2 positive patients: an observational study from North India. Dermatol Ther. 2020;33:e13849. 10.1111/dth.13849. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
21. Herrero‐Moyano M, Capusan TM, Andreu‐Barasoain M, et al. A clinicopathological study of eight patients with COVID‐19 pneumonia and a late‐onset exanthema. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2020;34(9):e460‐e464. 10.1111/jdv.16631. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
22. Mahé A, Birckel E, Krieger S, Merklen C, Bottlaender L. A distinctive skin rash associated with coronavirus disease 2019? J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2020;34(6):246‐247. 10.1111/jdv.16471. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
23. Gaspari V, Neri I, Misciali C, Patrizi A. COVID‐19: how it can look on the skin. Clinical and pathological features in 20 COVID‐19 patients observed in Bologna, North‐Eastern Italy. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2020;34(10):552‐553. 10.1111/jdv.16693. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
24. de Masson A, Bouaziz JD, Sulimovic L, et al. Chilblains is a common cutaneous finding during the COVID‐19 pandemic: a retrospective nationwide study from France. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020;83(2):667‐670. 10.1016/j.jaad.2020.04.161. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
25. Gianotti R, Veraldi S, Recalcati S, et al. Cutaneous clinico‐pathological findings in three COVID‐19‐positive patients observed in the metropolitan area of Milan, Italy. Acta Derm Venereol. 2020;100(8):124. 10.2340/00015555-3490. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
26. Falkenhain López D, Sánchez‐Velázquez A, Ortiz de Frutos J. Maculopapular rash as initial manifestation of SARS‐coronavirus‐2 infection. Maculopapular rash as the initial manifestation of SARS‐coronavirus‐2 infection. Med Clin. 2020;155(2):92. 10.1016/j.medcli.2020.04.003. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
27. Rosell‐Díaz AM, Mateos‐Mayo A, Nieto‐Benito LM, et al. Exanthema and eosinophilia in COVID‐19 patients: has viral infection a role in drug induced exanthemas? J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2020;34(10):561‐563. 10.1111/jdv.16709. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
28. Rubio‐Muniz CA, Puerta‐Peña M, Falkenhain‐López D, et al. The broad spectrum of dermatological manifestations in COVID‐19: clinical and histopathological features learned from a series of 34 cases. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2020;34(10):574‐576. 10.1111/jdv.16734. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
29. Askin O, Altunkalem RN, Altinisik DD, Uzuncakmak TK, Tursen U, Kutlubay Z. Cutaneous manifestations in hospitalized patients diagnosed as COVID‐19. Dermatol Ther. 2020;33:e13896. 10.1111/dth.13896. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
30. Sachdeva M, Gianotti R, Shah M, et al. Cutaneous manifestations of COVID‐19: report of three cases and a review of literature. J Dermatol Sci. 2020;98(2):75‐81. 10.1016/j.jdermsci.2020.04.011. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
31. Jones VG, Mills M, Suarez D, et al. COVID‐19 and Kawasaki disease: novel virus and novel case. Hosp Pediatr. 2020;10(6):537‐540. 10.1542/hpeds.2020-0123. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
32. Chen Y, Liu Q, Guo D. Emerging coronaviruses: genome structure, replication, and pathogenesis. J Med Virol. 2020;92(4):418‐423. 10.1002/jmv.25681. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
33. Li H, Liu L, Zhang D, et al. SARS‐CoV‐2 and viral sepsis: observations and hypotheses. Lancet. 2020;395(10235):1517‐1520. 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30920-X. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
34. Li G, Fan Y, Lai Y, et al. Coronavirus infections and immune responses. J Med Virol. 2020;92(4):424‐432. 10.1002/jmv.25685. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
35. Criado PR, de Carvalho JF, Ayabe LA, Brandt HR, Romiti R, Maruta CW. Urticaria and dermographism in patients with adult‐onset Still’s disease. Rheumatol Int. 2012;32(8):2551‐2555. 10.1007/s00296-011-2025-5. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
36. Català A, Galván‐Casas C, Carretero‐Hernández G, et al. Maculopapular eruptions associated to COVID‐19: a subanalysis of the COVID‐Piel study. Dermatol Ther. 2020;33:e14170. 10.1111/dth.14170. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
37. Sousa Gonçalves C, Reis Carreira N, Passos D, et al. Erythematous papular rash: a dermatological feature of COVID‐19. Eur J Case Rep Intern Med. 2020;7(7):1768. 10.12890/2020_001768. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
38. Reymundo A, Fernáldez‐Bernáldez A, Reolid A, et al. Clinical and histological characterization of late appearance maculopapular eruptions in association with the coronavirus disease 2019. A case series of seven patients. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2020;34:755‐757. 10.1111/jdv.16707. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
39. Hunt M, Koziatek C. A case of COVID‐19 pneumonia in a young male with full body rash as a presenting symptom. Clin Pract Cases Emerg Med. 2020;4(2):219‐221. 10.5811/cpcem.2020.3.47349. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
40. Najarian DJ. Morbilliform exanthem associated with COVID‐19. JAAD Case Rep. 2020;6(6):493‐494. 10.1016/j.jdcr.2020.04.015. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
41. Bouaziz JD, Duong TA, Jachiet M, et al. Vascular skin symptoms in COVID‐19: a French observational study. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2020;34(9):451‐452. 10.1111/jdv.16544. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
42. Hedou M, Carsuzaa F, Chary E, Hainaut E, Cazenave‐Roblot F, Masson Regnault M. Comment on “cutaneous manifestations in COVID‐19: a first perspective” by Recalcati S. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2020;34(7):299‐300. 10.1111/jdv.16519. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
43. Morey‐Olivé M, Espiau M, Mercadal‐Hally M, Lera‐Carballo E, García‐Patos V. Cutaneous manifestations in the current pandemic of coronavirus infection disease (COVID 2019). An Pediatr. 2020;92(6):374‐375. 10.1016/j.anpede.2020.04.002. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
44. Olisova OY, Anpilogova EM, Shnakhova LM. Cutaneous manifestations in COVID‐19: a skin rash in a child. Dermatol Ther. 2020;33:e13712. 10.1111/dth.13712. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
45. Cabrera‐Hernández R, Solano‐Solares E, Chica‐Guzmán V, et al. SARS‐CoV‐2, skin lesions and the need of a multidisciplinary approach. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2020;34:659‐662. 10.1111/jdv.16745. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
46. Zengarini C, Orioni G, Cascavilla A, et al. Histological pattern in COVID‐19‐induced viral rash. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2020;34(9):453‐454. 10.1111/jdv.16569. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
47. Méndez Maestro I, Peña Merino L, González U, Del Tánago B. Skin manifestations in patients hospitalized with confirmed COVID‐19 disease: a cross‐sectional study in a tertiary hospital. Int J Dermatol. 2020;59:1353‐1357. 10.1111/ijd.15180. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
48. Öksüm Solak E, Baran Ketencioğlu B, Çinar SL, Kartal D, Borlu M. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) accompanied by maculopapular rash: a case study. Cureus. 2020;12(9):10414. 10.7759/cureus.10414. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
49. Farabi B, Atak MF. Isolated maculopapular eruption localized to head and neck: a cutaneous sign of COVID‐19 infection. Dermatol Ther. 2020;33:e14468. 10.1111/dth.14468. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
50. Rossi E, Lasagni C, Trakatelli M, Wertzberger Rowan S, Magnoni C. Acute maculopapular eruption in Covid‐19 patient: a case report. Dermatol Ther. 2020;33:e13812. 10.1111/dth.13812. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
51. Mazan P, Lesiak A, Skibiñska M, et al. Maculopapular rash in COVID‐19 patient treated with lopinavir/ritonavir. Postepy Dermatol Alergol. 2020;37(3):435‐437. 10.5114/ada.2020.95029. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
52. Motohashi I, Takano T, Ie K, Hashimoto Y, Akino S, Okuse C. Development of maculopapular exanthem in a COVID‐19 patient. J Dermatol. 2020;47(12):426‐427. 10.1111/1346-8138.15579. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
53. Punyaratabandhu P, Chirachanakul P. Cutaneous eruption in COVID‐19‐infected patients in Thailand: an observational descriptive study. J Dermatol. 2020;48:14‐20. 10.1111/1346-8138.15625. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
54. second BR, Petrie C, Toledo A. Mixed purpuric and maculopapular lesions in a patient with COVID‐19: a case report. Clin Pract Cases Emerg Med. 2020;4(3):349‐351. 10.5811/cpcem.2020.6.48617. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]