Search

Recent years have seen important advances in our understanding of calciphylaxis, especially regarding newly identified risk factors and histologic findings that may aid diagnosis. This retrospective study of cases of calciphylaxis treated in our hospital in the last 13 years focuses on newly revealed aspects of this disease. We describe 16 patients (62.5% women; mean age, 67.9 years). In addition to advanced kidney disease (in 75% of our patients), other factors associated with the presence of calciphylaxis were a history of treatments related to phosphorus and calcium metabolism (75%) and anticoagulation (62.5%), usually with vitamin-K antagonists. Histology showed alterations in elastic fibers in only 25% of the biopsy specimens. Eleven of the patients died: sepsis was most often the cause. (C) 2021 AEDV. Published by Elsevier Espana, S.L.U.

Chilblain-like acral lesions have been identified in some coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. It has been suggested that these pseudo-chilblains could be a specific marker of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Most patients with these lesions have had negative polymerase chain reactions (PCRs), but some authors believe serology tests are likely to give positive results. We designed a prospective study including all patients with pseudo-chilblains treated in outpatient department in April and May 2020 and then performed SARS-CoV-2 PCR and serology tests on all available patients. We evaluated 59 patients, of whom 17 had undergone PCR before the study period, all with negative results. For the present study, we performed 20 additional PCRs, serology tests in 25 patients, and a parvovirus B19 antibody test in 15 patients. All results were negative. Our findings counter the hypothesis that serology is likely to reveal SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with pseudo-chilblains. One hypothesis for our negative results is that the time period between symptom onset and antibody production is longer in these patients; another is that the lesions are caused by behavioral changes during lockdown rather than SARS-CoV-2 infection. We nevertheless maintain that COVID-19 should be ruled out in people presenting with chilblain-like lesions.

Recently, young COVID-19 patients have presented with erythematous and purpuric acral lesions similar to chilblains(1–3). Despite the scarcity of published cases, this topic has attracted significant mass media attention.(4) Dermatologists have noted that more people than would be expected at this time of year are seeking medical attention for these chilblain-like lesions. Some have suggested that people presenting with this manifestation should be tested and isolated(2). Determining the accuracy of this association is therefore crucial. To establish the real prevalence of COVID-19 in patients with acral skin lesions, we firstly evaluated all the cases of acral lesions presented in dermatology and paediatrics departments and family doctors’ offices in an eastern Spanish region over a three-week period. Then we prospectively performed a SARS-CoV-2 PCR on nasopharyngeal aspirates taken from all available patients to determine whether their cutaneous manifestations were predictive of a positive result. To put our findings into context, we reviewed all the articles published before May 2020 concerning COVID-19 patients with cutaneous lesions. We evaluated 58 patients, whose characteristics are summarized in Table 1. In most cases, lesions were chilblain-like. Fifteen patients had already been tested, and only one had a positive result: an 85-year-old man admitted for severe Covid-19 pneumonia. He had an ulcer on a toe that was finally determined to be vascular in nature. We performed prospective PCR testing in 24 patients. All test results were negative. In total, then, PCR was negative in 38 patients and positive in a single patient whose lesion was very unlikely to be due to COVID-19. Our bibliography search returned 97 articles and we found 2 more through cross-references. Nine of these articles dealt with acral lesions specifically. Their results are summarized in Table 2. Data published in the literature are heterogeneous, as are the methods employed to collect them. The first papers looked at cutaneous manifestations in patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection.(5–8) This approach cannot reveal whether this dermatologic manifestation is a specific marker of SARS-CoV-2 infection, since patients without COVID-19 are not included. The other approach, which we have followed, is to analyse all patients with acral lesions. This can be done retrospectively, reporting on patients in the sample who have already been tested, or prospectively, performing the test on all available patients, regardless of whether they have symptoms. The retrospective method has a significant risk of confounding bias: due to the scarcity of COVID-19 tests(8), they are usually reserved for patients with COVID-19-related symptoms, who are obviously more likely to test positive. All previous studies including only patients with cutaneous acral lesions (summarized in table 2) have been retrospective, and only a minority of patients were tested. In total, 12 out of at least 49 tested patients were positive (24.5%). Combined with our results, they total 13 positives out of 88 tests (14.8%). There are two possible explanations for the high proportion of negative results: I) A high number of false negatives. II) The lesions are not related to SARS-CoV-2 infection. The low prevalence of an infected contact in our sample, after three weeks of strict confinement in Spain, makes the possibility of being infected in our cohort less likely. The diffusion of this entity by the mass media may have caused patients who would not normally consult to do so.(9) . Other possible explanations include a concomitant parvovirus B19 outbreak(10) or trauma-induced lesions. Our study suggests that acral skin lesions are not a specific marker of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Although larger prospective studies are needed, current evidence indicates that acral skin lesions should not be regarded as a sign of COVID-19 in otherwise asymptomatic patients.