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.

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.

Background Intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG) have been increasingly used for various inflammatory dermatoses with success. Small case series and case reports suggest a role for IVIG in the management of refractory pyoderma gangrenosum (PG). Objective The objective was to study the characteristics of PG patients treated with IVIG and the efficacy and safety of IVIG for patients with refractory PG. Methods An analysis was performed of all patients with PG treated with IVIG from 2012 to 2022 at an Australian tertiary hospital seeing a high volume of PG patients. Results We identified 12 patients, 9 females and 3 males, with median age of 61 years (29–77) at IVIG commencement. All patients were taking systemic corticosteroid therapy prior to IVIG treatment, and all had been treated with a steroid‐sparing agent—including ten patients who had been treated with a biologic agent. IVIG was used with corticosteroids in one patient, concurrently with a steroid‐sparing agent in nine patients and with a biologic agent in eight patients. Eleven patients demonstrated treatment response to IVIG—six with excellent response and five with good response. Three patients had complete healing of their most active ulcer. One patient did not respond to IVIG. Nine patients were able to wean their prednisolone dose and one patient was able to cease prednisolone. Four adverse events were recorded, and only one patient had to cease treatment due to aseptic meningitis and headaches. Conclusion Our experience suggests that IVIG may be an efficacious treatment for patients with refractory PG due to its pleiotropic and immunomodulatory effects, particularly for patients with malignancy or other systemic conditions where high‐dose immunosuppressive agents are contraindicated.

No abstract