Health professions preventing and controlling Coronavirus Disease 2019 are prone to skin and mucous membrane injury, which may cause acute and chronic dermatitis, secondary infection and aggravation of underlying skin diseases. This is a consensus of Chinese experts on protective measures and advice on hand‐cleaning‐ and medical‐glove‐related hand protection, mask‐ and goggles‐related face protection, UV‐related protection, eye protection, nasal and oral mucosa protection, outer ear and hair protection. It is necessary to strictly follow standards of wearing protective equipment and specification of sterilizing and cleaning. Insufficient and excessive protection will have adverse effects on the skin and mucous membrane barrier. At the same time, using moisturizing products is highly recommended to achieve better protection.

Dear Editor, During the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19), healthcare workers (HCWs) caring for patients with COVID‐19 have to wear personal protective equipment (PPE) and are therefore susceptible to PPE‐related adverse skin reactions. However, little is known about the prevalence and characteristics of these adverse skin reactions and their associated risk factors.

In acral melanoma (AM), progression from in situ (AMis) to invasive AM (iAM) leads to significantly reduced survival. However, evolutionary dynamics during this process remain elusive. Here, we report integrative molecular and spatial characterization of 147 AMs using genomics, bulk and single-cell transcriptomics, and spatial transcriptomics and proteomics. Vertical invasion from AMis to iAM displays an early and monoclonal seeding pattern. The subsequent regional expansion of iAM exhibits two distinct patterns, clonal expansion and subclonal diversification. Notably, molecular subtyping reveals an aggressive iAM subset featured with subclonal diversification, increased epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT), and spatial enrichment of APOE⁺/CD163⁺ macrophages. In vitro and ex vivo experiments further demonstrate that APOE⁺CD163⁺ macrophages promote tumor EMT via IGF1-IGF1R interaction. Adnexal involvement can predict AMis with higher invasive potential whereas APOE and CD163 serve as prognostic biomarkers for iAM. Altogether, our results provide implications for the early detection and treatment of AM.

BACKGROUND: Extracellular matrix communicates with surrounding cells to maintain skin homeostasis and modulate multiple cellular processes including wound healing. OBJECTIVE: To elucidate the dynamic composition and potential roles of extracellular matrix in normal skin, wound healing process, and abnormal skin scarring. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Literature review was performed to identify relevant publications pertaining to the extracellular matrix deposition in normal skin and wound healing process, as well as in abnormal scars. RESULTS: A summary of the matrix components in normal skin is presented. Their primary roles in hemostasis, inflammation, proliferation, and remodeling phases of wound healing are briefly discussed. Identification of novel extracellular matrix in keloids is also provided. CONCLUSION: Abnormal scarring remains a challenging condition with unmet satisfactory treatments. Illumination of extracellular matrix composition and functions in wound healing process will allow for the development of targeted therapies in the future.

Introduction To evaluate the efficacy and safety of lidocaine patches in Chinese patients with postherpetic neuralgia (PHN). Methods Patients were randomized to receive lidocaine patches or placebo every day for 4 weeks. Efficacy endpoints included the decrease of analogue scale score (VAS) value at week 4, 2 and 1 and the percentage of patients that achieved a 30% decrease of VAS value. Safety analyses were conducted as well. Results Two hundred forty Chinese patients were randomized. At week 1, lidocaine patch-treated patients had a higher clinical response versus placebo, and at week 4, the mean (SD) decreases of VAS value compared to the baseline were 14.01 (14.35) in the treatment group and 9.36 (12.03) in the placebo group (p = 0.0088). Overall, the safety profile in the treatment group was consistent with that observed in the placebo group [adverse event (AE) incidence rate: 33.33% versus 37.29%, p = 0.5857]. Conclusions Lidocaine patches resulted in improved clinical response versus placebo in the treatment of PHN patients and were well tolerated.