Search

Teledermatology (TD) was previously described as an efficient substitute to in-person visits for COVID-19 associated lesions.1 During the first COVID-19 wave, chilblain-like lesions (CLL) were the most reported dermatological manifestation.2-4 Although COVID-19 polymerase reactive chain (PCR) or serology were negative for most cases, this unexpected outbreak of chilblains remained remarkable.5.

Coronavirus 19 (COVID‐19) was declared as a pandemic viral infection by the World Health organization on March 11th 2020. Usual clinical manifestations of COVID‐19 infection include fever, fatigue, myalgia, headache, diarrhea, dry cough, dyspnea that may lead to acute respiratory distress syndrome and death (1). Skin symptoms of COVID‐19 have been poorly described but may include erythematous rash, urticaria and chicken pox like lesions (2‐7). Angiotensin‐converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) is a cellular receptor for COVID‐19.

In March 2020, Europe became the epicenter of COVID-19 pandemic. Several countries organized nationwide population containment, starting on March 9(th) in Italy and March 17(th) in France(1) . For the continuity of care and to avoid in person consultation and disease propagation, the French ministry of health released incentives to facilitate live interactive consultation for COVID and non-COVID patients.

Background and objective Studies of dermatological emergencies (DE) are few. We evaluated the activity in our DE unit in a 1-month retrospective study and compared the results with a similar study performed in the same department in 2000. Methods We reviewed the charts of all outpatients seen in the DE unit in January 2010, collecting data on age, sex, place of residence, referral mode, day and hour of consultation, true emergency or non-emergency, diagnosis and follow-up. Results In January 2010, we serviced 605 patients (58% males, mean age 40 ± 21 years), 21% more than in 2000; 43.5% were seen during off-duty hours vs. 49% in 2000 (P = 0.066), 49% were considered true emergencies vs. 43% in 2000 (P = 0.046), and 14% were referred by a physician vs. 23% in 2000 (P = 0.0001). In total, 35.2% of cases were infectious dermatoses in 2010 vs. 29% in 2000 (P = 0.026). Other diagnoses were eczema, urticaria and drug-related eruptions. Follow-up was suggested to 53.3% of the patients. Conclusions Our DE unit satisfies a genuine need. Its activity increased over 10 years, most likely because of the decrease in the number of dermatologists in France. Although our results are close to those reported in the literature, comparison with previously published studies is difficult because of the heterogeneity of the definition of DE.