Search

A new criterion by which to discriminate between patients with moderate allergic rhinitis and patients with severe allergic rhinitis based on the allergic rhinitis and its impact on asthma severity items. For our analysis, we used the (i) cumulative dSS/CSMS/VAS; (ii) average dSS/CSMS/VAS; and (iii) number of "high days", surpassing the arbitrarily chosen thresholds of >=1 for dSS (max. 3), >=2 for CSMS (max. 6) and >=3 for VAS (max. 10). While patients who retrospectively judged their AR symptoms as persistent, indicated to suffer from allergic symptoms during more than 50% of the recorded days (Figure 1, bottom left), those retrospectively assessing their symptoms as intermittent, showed a broader range of data entries indicating symptoms. [Extracted from the article]

Background: Patient‐generated symptom and medication scores are essential for diagnostic and therapeutic decisions in seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR). Previous studies have shown solid consistencies between different scores at population level in real‐life data and trials. For clinicians, the evaluation of individual data quality over time is essential to decide whether to rely on these data in clinical decision‐making. Objective: To analyze the consistency of different symptom (SS) and symptom medication scores (SMSs) at individual level in two study cohorts with different characteristics and explore individual patient trajectories over time. Methods: Within the pilot phase of the @IT.2020 project on diagnostic synergy of mobile health and molecular IgE assessment in patients with SAR, we analyzed data of 101 children and 93 adults with SAR and instructed them to record their symptoms and medication intake daily via the mobile app AllergyMonitor®. We then assessed the correlation between different SMS and a visual analogue scale (VAS) on the impact of allergy symptoms on daily life at population and individual level. Results: At population level, the Rhinoconjunctivitis total symptom score (RTSS) correlated better with VAS than the combined symptom and medication score (CSMS). At individual level, consistency among RTSS and VAS was highly heterogeneous and unrelated to disease severity or adherence to recording. Similar heterogeneity was observed for CSMS and VAS. Conclusions: The correlation of clinical information provided by different disease severity scores based on data collected via electronic diaries (e‐diaries), is sufficient at population level, but broadly heterogeneous for individual patients. Consistency of the recorded data must be examined for each patient before remotely collected information is used for clinical decision making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Common COVID‐19 vaccines side effects are pain at the injection site, muscle pain, fever, headaches, fatigue. Possible immune‐related side effects in predisposed individuals have not been established so far. Materials and Methods: We report three cases of recurrence of alopecia areata (AA) occurred after the first dose of COVID‐19 vaccine. Results: All patients had previous episodes of AA with total hair regrowth and stable remission during the months preceding the vaccination. Rapid hair loss occurred 2‐3 weeks after BNT162b2 mRNA (patient 1) and AZD1222/ChAdOx1 vaccine (patient 2 and 3), with widespread hair loss in two cases and a single patch of the vertex in one case, with typical trichoscopic features of AA. Discussion: Both BNT162b2 mRNA and AZD1222/ChAdOx1 vaccines share the same goal of inducing the immune system, with antibodies production and Th1 cells activation with release of pro‐inflammatory cytokines. Thus, in patients with pre‐existing inflammatory dysregulated pathways, the interaction between the immune system and vaccines may enhance other autoimmune mechanisms. In our cases, we speculate that vaccine may have induced the hair loss focusing on components having a key role in both COVID‐19 vaccination and AA pathogenesis. Conclusion: This report may help to collect new data concerning possible immune‐related effects of vaccines. Certainly, only three cases are not sufficient to draw conclusion, thus a large‐scale study is necessary. Immune‐mediated side effects remain a rare event, thus the benefits of COVID‐19 vaccines outweigh the risk of disease flares and we strongly recommend it in all eligible patients with AA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is the only disease‐modifying treatment in patients with seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (SAR). Its efficacy depends on the precise identification of the triggering allergen. However, diagnostics based on retrospective clinical history and sensitization to whole extracts (SWE) often leads to equivocal results. Objectives: To assess the usability and impact of a recently established algorithm for a clinical decision support system (@IT2020‐CDSS) for SAR and its diagnostic steps [anamnesis, SWE (skin prick test or serum IgE), component resolved diagnosis, CRD, and real‐time digital symptom recording, eDiary] on doctor's AIT prescription decisions. Methods: After educational training on the @IT2020‐CDSS algorithm, 46 doctors (18 allergy specialists, AS, and 28 general practitioners, GP) expressed their hypothetical AIT prescription for 10 clinical index cases. Decisions were recorded repeatedly based on different steps of the algorithm. The usability and perceived impact of the algorithm were evaluated. Results: The combined use of CRD and an eDiary increased the hypothetical AIT prescriptions, both among AS and GP (p <.01). AIT prescription for pollen and Alternaria allergy based on anamnesis and SWE was heterogeneous but converged towards a consensus by integrating CRD and eDiary information. Doctors considered the algorithm useful and recognized its potential in enhancing traditional diagnostics. Conclusions and clinical implications: The implementation of CRD and eDiary in the @IT2020‐CDSS algorithm improved consensus on AIT prescription for SAR among AS and GP. The potential usefulness of a CDSS for aetiological diagnosis of SAR and AIT prescription in real‐world clinical practice deserves further investigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic relapsing eczematous dermatitis typically affecting young patients in a percentage from 15 to 20%; although it typically affects young people and adults, recent papers highlighted the emerging of the disease in the elderly population. Methods: The aim of the study was to identify the clinical criteria and allergic sensitization that may be able to support physicians and dermatologists in making a correct diagnosis of AD in the elderly. The second aim of this study was to investigate the incidence, the main features, the gender prevalence, the immunological profile, and comorbidities characterizing patients older than 65 years affected by AD. Results: Based on clinical and serological patterns, different phenotypes of AD were identified: generalized AD (55%) characterized by eczematous lesions involving typical areas of the body or prurigo nodularis‐like AD; chronic eczematous hand dermatitis (23%); face and neck involvement (9%); and nummular eczema (13%). Skin prick tests revealed a positivity for aeroallergens in 49.6% of patients, most of them being polysensitized (55%). Additionally, food skin prick tests were positive in 25% of patients. Most of the patients reported comorbidities, particularly IgE‐mediated diseases, such as seasonal rhino‐conjunctivitis, asthma, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Gastrointestinal symptoms such as meteorism, dyspepsia, cramps/abdominal pain, and diarrhea/constipation, were observed in 35% of patients consequent to food allergy. Conclusion: In our study, we suggest clinical and serological criteria that may be able to guide in the diagnosis of AD in Caucasian elderly, and to design an appropriate treatment according to the current standard protocol. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is growing interest both in testing IgE in nasal secretions (NS) and in molecular diagnosis of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR). Yet, the reliability of nasal IgE detection with the newest molecular assays has never been assessed in a large cohort of pollen allergic patients. Objective: To investigate with microarray technology and compare the repertoires of specific IgE (sIgE) antibodies in NS and sera of a large population of children and adults with SAR. Methods: Nasal secretions were collected with an absorbent device (Merocel 2000®, Medtronic) and a minimal dilution procedure from 90 children and 71 adults with SAR. Total IgE (tIgE) (ImmunoCAP, Thermo Fisher Scientific (TFS)) and sIgE antibodies against 112 allergen molecules (ISAC‐112, TFS) were measured in NS and serum. Results: Nasal sIgE was detectable in 68.3% of the patients. The detected nasal sIgE antibodies recognized airborne (88%), vegetable (10%), and animal food or other (<1%) allergen molecules. The prevalence and average levels of sIgE in NS and serum were highly interrelated at population level. A positive nasal sIgE antibody to a given molecule predicted the detection of the same antibody in the patient's serum with a specificity of 99.7% and a sensitivity of 40%. Conclusions: The concentration of sIgE is much lower in nasal secretions than in the serum. sIgE assays with very high analytical sensitivity and sampling methods with minimal dilution will be therefore needed to validate nasal secretions as alternative to serum in testing the sIgE repertoire. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Background: The identification of the primary sensitizing pollen is difficult in Southern European patients with Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis (SAR) if sensitized to various pollen sources with overlapping seasonality. A more precise diagnosis is obtained by IgE assays to allergen molecules, currently available as singleplex or microarrays. Objectives: To test the analytical performance of a multi‐parameter immunoblot molecular "Pollen Test" specifically designed to test IgE antibodies to pollen extracts and molecules clinically relevant in Southern Europe. Methods: Sera were obtained from 101 children and 98 adults with SAR and tested with a customized multiplex immunoblot assay (EUROLINE Southern European Pollen Profile [ESEP]; EUROIMMUN AG, Luebeck, Germany) containing a comprehensive panel of allergen extracts and molecules. ESEP's outcomes were then compared in selected sera (ESEP positive to negative = 2:1) with those of singleplex IgE assays (ImmunoCAP; ThermoFisher Scientific, Uppsala, Sweden). For each of the examined reagents, qualitative (sensitivity, specificity, accuracy), semi‐quantitative (classes) and quantitative (Spearman's rank correlation, Bland‐Altmann plots) comparisons were performed. Results: Compared to ImmunoCAP, cumulative ESEP's sensitivity and specificity were 87% (95% CI 84%‐90%) and 88% (83%‐93%) for extracts and 99% (98%‐100%) and 87% (83%‐91%) for molecules. Cohen's kappa coefficients (κC) ranged for extracts from 0.18 (Pellitory) to 0.50 (Cypress) and for molecules from 0.21 (Ole e 1) to 0.68 (Phl p 7). The quantitative outcomes of the two diagnostic tests were highly correlated, with Spearman's rank correlation coefficients always exceeding 0.80. Bland‐Altmann plots showed a tendency of ESEP to overestimate serum specific IgE levels, when compared to ImmunoCAP. Conclusions and clinical relevance: Sensitivity and specificity of ESEP in testing serum IgE antibodies against pollen allergen extracts and molecules, in Italian patients with SAR, both exceeded 85%. The advantages and limitations of a multiplex customized immunoblot assay, in the routine clinical use of molecular diagnostics in Southern European pollen allergic patients, deserve to be tested. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Dear Editor, We present the cases of 10 patients affected by actinic keratoses (AKs) of the ears, derived from a group of 30 subjects of a head-to-head comparative study between two different field directed therapies (ingenol mebutate vs. diclofenac) developing ear nodules. In post-therapy nodules, the expression of p53 resulted analogous to healthy skin, with sporadic representation in the malpighian layer (Fig. [Extracted from the article]

Keywords: alopecia areata; COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2 EN alopecia areata COVID-19 SARS-CoV-2 2004 2005 2 06/23/21 20210701 NES 210701 Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has spread across the globe from December 2019 determining the current pandemic. Only two previous cases of new-onset AA after SARS-CoV-2 infection have been described,2,3 and our report is the third published case of new-onset AA in a COVID-19 patient, and the second one with total distribution. Stress is one of the most common trigger exacerbating or inducing AA; thus, cases of AA in individuals with COVID-19 could be a consequence of the psychological distress related to the infection. [Extracted from the article]