The diagnosis of eczema (‘dermatitis’) is mostly clinical and depends on the clinical history and exploratory objective findings (primary lesions, patterns). Contact dermatitis remains as an important condition in the group of eczematous disorders, with important socioeconomic and occupational relevance. Although irritant and allergic contact dermatitis have a different pathogenesis, both are characterized by a rather typical morphology, are triggered by external factors and tend to occur primarily in the area of contact with the exogenous agent. In addition, allergic and irritant dermatitis may also co‐exist. The importance of diagnosing contact dermatitis, especially when allergic in nature, is both due to the possibility of avoiding the trigger, and due to its role in aggravating other skin conditions. Nevertheless, the heterogeneity of clinical presentations in daily practice may pose an important challenge for the suspicion and correct diagnosis of contact dermatitis. Furthermore, other conditions, with different pathogenesis and treatment, may clinically simulate contact dermatitis. The Task Force aims to conduct a review of the unifying clinical features of contact dermatitis and characterize its main clinical phenotypes, and its simulators, in order to contribute to an early suspicion or recognition of contact dermatitis and enable a correct differential diagnosis.

Concomitant contact allergy to formaldehyde and formaldehyde-releasers remains common among patients with allergic contact dermatitis. Concentration of free formaldehyde in cosmetic products within allowed limits have been shown to induce dermatitis from shortterm use on normal skin. The aim of this study was to investigate the formaldehyde content of cosmetic products made in Lithuania. 42 samples were analysed with the chromotropic acid (CA) method for semi-quantitative formaldehyde determination. These included 24 leave-on (e.g., creams, lotions) and 18 rinse-off (e.g., shampoos, soaps) products. Formaldehyde releasers were declared on the labels of 10 products. No formaldehyde releaser was declared on the label of the only face cream investigated, but levels of free formaldehyde with the CA method was >40 mg/ml and when analysed with a high-performance liquid chromatographic method – 532 ppm. According to the EU Cosmetic directive, if the concentration of formaldehyde is above 0.05% a cosmetic product must be labelled “contains formaldehyde“. It could be difficult for patients allergic to formaldehyde to avoid contact with products containing it as its presence cannot be determined from the ingredient labelling with certainty. The CA method is a simple and reliable method for detecting formaldehyde presence in cosmetic products.

Background and objective: According to the World Health Organization (WHO), more than 100 million people have already recovered from SARS-CoV-2 infection. Therefore, it is imperative to understand the possible outcomes of COVID-19. The aim of our study was to evaluate pulmonary function, exercise capacity, residual radiological changes, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) at follow-up in a cohort of SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia survivors. Materials and Methods: Patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection and radiologically confirmed lung injury, with no chronic lung disease prior to this infection, were included in the study. Patients’ evaluation 2 months after their discharge from hospital included spirometry (FVC, FEV1, FEV1/FVC), determination of lung volume (TLC, VC, RV) and diffusing capacity of lung for carbon monoxide (DLCO, adjusted for hemoglobin), 6-Minute Walk Test (6MWT), chest CT scan, and 36-Item Short Form General Health Survey (SF-36). Results: Fifty-one patients (25 men, 26 women) were included. The mean age was 56 years (SD-11,72). Eighteen patients (35.3%) had experienced moderate COVID-19, 21 (41.2%) severe COVID-19, and 12 (23.5%) were critically ill. The mean follow-up visit time after the discharge from hospital was 60 days (SD-17). Pulmonary function at follow-up was impaired in 24 (47.2%) patients. Reduced lung volume was observed in 15 (29.4%) patients, DLCO reduction in 15 (29.4%) patients, and only one patient displayed obstruction. Twelve patients out of 51 (12/51, 27.3%) showed reduced physical capacity in the 6 MWT, and 3/51 (9.1%) showed desaturation, with SO2 < 90%. Different levels of abnormality were found in 49/51 (96,1%) patients on follow-up chest CT; the median radiological score was 10.9 (SD ± 8.87, possible maximal score, 25). Ground-glass opacity was the most common radiological feature, found in 45 (88.2%) patients. The SF-36 scores demonstrated a reduction in health status across all domains, with the lowest scores for limitations in social activities because of physical problems, vitality, and general health. Conclusion: In the group of COVID-19 pneumonia survivors 2 months after hospital discharge, residual changes in the lungs on chest CT and in lung function and reduced physical and HRQoL status were found in a significant number of patients. To evaluate COVID-19 long-term consequences, a longer follow-up period is needed.