Search

Background: Evidence on the (long‐term) safety of systemic immunomodulating therapies in atopic dermatitis (AD) generated by real‐world data is sparse. Objectives: To describe real‐world reported adverse drug reactions (AEs) related to systemic immunomodulating therapy in patients with AD and to compare the incidence rates of AEs with the Summaries of Product Characteristics (SmPCs). Methods: We conducted an observational prospective multi‐centre cohort study, using the TREAT NL registry. All severe AEs, AEs of special interest and serious AEs in adult and paediatric patients on systemic immunomodulating treatment (ciclosporin, methotrexate, azathioprine, mycophenolic acid, dupilumab, tralokinumab, baricitinib and upadacitinib) were assessed. Incidences rates of all (potentially) drug‐related AEs were standardized in patient years and compared to the cumulative incidences in the associated SmPCs. Results: We collected 422 patient years of safety data from 266 patients, of whom 129 (48.5%) reported a total of 224 (potentially) drug‐related AEs. Compared to dupilumab's SmPC, higher incidence rates were found for four AEs (reported ≥5 times): eosinophilia, blepharitis, dry eyes and head and neck erythema (i.e. dupilumab facial redness). A higher incidence rate of fatigue was found in patients on oral methotrexate in our cohort compared to the SmPC. Two new drug‐related AEs (reported ≥5 times) were found in patients on dupilumab, including non‐infectious conjunctivitis and meibomian gland dysfunction. Conclusions: Real‐world reported AEs captured in AD patient registries can add information on the estimated incidence of AEs and benefit clinical decision aids. Future studies using data derived from the TREAT NL registry combined with data from other registries within the TREAT Registry Taskforce will provide more information on (rare) AEs associated with immunomodulating therapy in AD patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Treating atopic dermatitis (AD) in pregnant or breastfeeding women, and in women and men with AD aspiring to be parents is difficult and characterized by uncertainty, as evidence to inform decision‐making on systemic anti‐inflammatory treatment is limited. This project mapped consensus across dermatologists, obstetricians and patients in Northwestern Europe to build practical advice for managing AD with systemic anti‐inflammatory treatment in men and women of reproductive age. Twenty‐one individuals (sixteen dermatologists, two obstetricians and three patients) participated in a two‐round Delphi process. Full consensus was reached on 32 statements, partial consensus on four statements and no consensus on four statements. Cyclosporine A was the first‐choice long‐term systemic AD treatment for women preconception, during pregnancy and when breastfeeding, with short‐course prednisolone for flare management. No consensus was reached on second‐choice systemics preconception or during pregnancy, although during breastfeeding dupilumab and azathioprine were deemed suitable. It may be appropriate to discuss continuing an existing systemic AD medication with a woman if it provides good disease control and its benefits in pregnancy outweigh its risks. Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, methotrexate and mycophenolate mofetil should be avoided by women during preconception, pregnancy and breastfeeding, with medication‐specific washout periods advised. For men preconception: cyclosporine A, azathioprine, dupilumab and corticosteroids are appropriate; a 3‐month washout prior to conception is desirable for methotrexate and mycophenolate mofetil; there was no consensus on JAK inhibitors. Patient and clinician education on appropriate (and inappropriate) AD treatments for use in pregnancy is vital. A shared‐care framework for interdisciplinary management of AD patients is advocated and outlined. This consensus provides interdisciplinary clinical guidance to clinicians who care for patients with AD before, during and after pregnancy. While systemic AD medications are used uncommonly in this patient group, considerations in this article may help patients with severe refractory AD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) is characterized by the repeated occurrence of persistent hives and/or angioedema for ≥6 weeks, without specific external stimuli. H1‐antihistamines have long been the standard of care of CSU, but many patients remain uncontrolled even at 4× the approved dose. Add‐on therapy with omalizumab has proven effective in clinical trials, but little is known about omalizumab treatment in Belgium. Objective: To collect real‐world clinical data on omalizumab treatment in adults with CSU in Belgium. Methods: This was an observational, retrospective chart review of adults with CSU, who initiated omalizumab treatment between August 2014 and December 2016 (maximum 28 months follow‐up). Results: In total, 235 patients were included (median time from symptom onset to diagnosis, 5.4 months; median time from diagnosis to commencing omalizumab, 6.7 months). Treatments used before/after commencing omalizumab did not always adhere to guidelines; many patients (26.4%/11.1%) received first‐generation H1‐antihistamines, while 20.4% used omalizumab monotherapy after initiating treatment. The mean interval between omalizumab administrations was 4.8 (SD 1.7) weeks; 67.8% of patients had ≥1 interval prolongation and/or shortening. Mean baseline 7‐day Urticaria Activity Score (UAS7) was 32.0 (SD 6.05); this improved to 12.6 (SD 11.2) after 1 month of omalizumab. About 67.2% of patients reached UAS7 ≤ 6 (well controlled) during the study. A total of 87 patients stopped omalizumab and never restarted before the end of the observation period; the most prevalent reason was remission of symptoms (49.4% of patients), followed by lack of effect (12.6%), lost to follow‐up (6.9%) and adverse events (3.4%). Headache was the most common adverse event (n = 8/82). No anaphylaxis was reported. Conclusions: This study revealed that patients initiated on omalizumab in Belgium had severe CSU at baseline, and showed substantial improvements after 1 month of treatment. Greater adherence to the prescription of guideline‐recommended medications is needed for the treatment of CSU. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A letter to the editor is presented concerning cessation of spread as a treatment objective in vitiligo.

BACKGROUND Prurigo nodularis is a chronic, debilitating, and severely pruritic neuroimmuno-logic skin disease. Nemolizumab, an interleukin-31 receptor alpha antagonist, down-regulates key pathways in the pathogenesis of prurigo nodularis. METHODS In this phase 3, double-blind, multicenter, randomized trial, we assigned adults with moderate-to-severe prurigo nodularis to receive an initial 60-mg dose of nemolizumab followed by subcutaneous injections of 30 mg or 60 mg (depending on baseline weight) every 4 weeks for 16 weeks or matching placebo. The primary end points were an itch response (a reduction of ≥4 points on the Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale [PP-NRS; scores range from 0 to 10, with higher scores indicating more severe itch]) and an Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) response (a score of 0 [clear] or 1 [almost clear] on the IGA [scores range from 0 to 4] and a reduction from baseline to week 16 of ≥2 points). There were five key secondary end points. RESULTS A total of 274 patients underwent randomization; 183 were assigned to the nemolizumab group, and 91 to the placebo group. Treatment efficacy was shown with respect to both primary end points at week 16; a greater percentage of patients in the nemolizumab group than in the placebo group had an itch response (56.3% vs. 20.9%; strata-adjusted difference, 37.4 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 26.3 to 48.5), and a greater percentage in the nemolizumab group had an IGA response (37.7% vs. 11.0%; strata-adjusted difference, 28.5 percentage points; 95% CI, 18.8 to 38.2) (P<0.001 for both comparisons). Benefits were observed for the five key secondary end points: itch response at week 4 (41.0% vs. 7.7%), PP-NRS score of less than 2 at week 4 (19.7% vs. 2.2%) and week 16 (35.0% vs. 7.7%), and an improvement of 4 or more points on the sleep disturbance numerical rating scale (range, 0 [no sleep loss] to 10 [unable to sleep at all]) at week 4 (37.2% vs. 9.9%) and week 16 (51.9% vs. 20.9%) (P<0.001 for all comparisons). The most common individual adverse events were headache (6.6% vs. 4.4%) and atopic dermatitis (5.5% vs. 0%). CONCLUSIONS Nemolizumab monotherapy significantly reduced the signs and symptoms of prurigo nodularis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Currently, limited data are available on long-term use of dupilumab to treat atopic dermatitis (AD) in a multinational real-world setting. The aim of this analysis was to report the interim 1-year data for patients with AD enrolled in the GLOBOSTAD registry, including treatment patterns, dupilumab effectiveness and safety, and healthcare burden., Methods: GLOBOSTAD is an ongoing, 5-year, multinational, prospective, observational study of adult/adolescent (aged ≥ 12 years at baseline) patients with AD who initiated dupilumab in real-world settings according to their local country-specific prescribing guidelines. Outcomes were evaluated at baseline and at 3, 6 and 12 months and included Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) total score, SCORing Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) total score, percent body surface area (BSA) affected, Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM), Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) total score for adults or Children's Dermatology Life Quality Index (CDLQI) total score for adolescents and pruritus Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) total score., Results: At the interim 1-year cut-off (March 2023), 955 patients were enrolled in GLOBOSTAD, and follow-up data were obtained from 903 patients. After dupilumab initiation, mean improvements in effectiveness outcome measures from baseline to month 3 were EASI from 25.1 to 6.1, SCORAD 59.3 to 25.3, POEM 19.7 to 8.7, DLQI 13.7 to 5.3, CDLQI 12.2 to 2.7 and pruritus NRS 6.3 to 2.5, with each measure exceeding the minimal clinically important difference. These positive changes in effectiveness outcomes were maintained or further improved through 12 months since treatment initiation. AD-related hospitalizations and emergency room or urgent care facility visits decreased from 11.1% to 1.7% from baseline to month 12., Conclusions: In a multinational real-world setting, dupilumab demonstrated rapid, robust and sustained effectiveness in patients with moderate-to-severe AD across multiple disease domains, including AD signs, symptoms, quality of life and emergency/urgent care visits. Safety was consistent with the known dupilumab safety profile., Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03992417., Competing Interests: Declarations. Conflict of Interest: P. Calzavara-Pinton is an advisory board member for AbbVie, Almirall, Galderma, LEO Pharma, Meda, and Sanofi. C-Y. Chu is an investigator for AbbVie, Dermira, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Oneness Biotech, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc., Roche, and Sanofi; a consultant for AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi; a speaker for AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Mylan, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and Viatris; and an advisory board member for Mylan, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi. Hilde Lapeere is on the advisory boards of AbbVie, LEO Pharma, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, and Sanofi. M. Rossi is a speaker for AbbVie, Galderma, La Roche-Posay, LEO Pharma, Pfizer, and Sanofi. S.M. Ferrucci is an advisory board member for AbbVie, Eli Lilly, and Sanofi; a principal Investigator for Almirall, Menarini, and Pfizer; and reports honoraria for lectures and research grants from Novartis. W-H. Chung has nothing to disclose. A-C. Fougerousse is a consultant for AbbVie, Galderma, LEO Pharma, Lilly, and Sanofi; and a consultant for AbbVie, Eli Lilly, and Sanofi. D.S. Fomina reports honoraria from CSL Behring, Novartis, Sanofi, and Shire. G. Holzer is an advisory board member for AbbVie, Almirall, Eli Lilly, Galderma, LEO Pharma, and Sanofi. J. Čelakovská has nothing to disclose. M. Al-Ahmad is an advisory board member and speaker for AstraZeneca, GSK, and Novartis. T. Tzellos has received honoraria from and is an advisory board member and speaker for AbbVie; and has received honoraria from and is an advisory board member for Boehringer Ingelheim and Sanofi. J. Wu is an employee of Sanofi, and may hold stock and/or stock options in the company. M. Ardeleanu is an employee and shareholder of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. K. Bosman is an employee and shareholder of Sanofi. Ethical Approval: The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, the International Conference on Harmonisation Good Clinical Practice guideline and applicable regulatory requirements. The local institutional review board or ethics committee at each study center oversaw trial conduct and documentation. All patients, or their parents/guardians, provided written informed consent before participating in the trial. Pediatric patients provided assent according to the ethics committee (institutional review board/independent ethics committee)-approved standard practice for pediatric patients at each participating center., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Introduction: As the COVID-19 pandemic becomes an endemic state, still many questions remain regarding the risks and impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) who were excluded from the phase 3 COVID-19 vaccination trials., Methods: The BELCOMID study collected patient data and serological samples from a large, multicentric IMID patient cohort that was prospectively followed during sequential stages of the pandemic. Patients were stratified according to vaccination status into five groups across three sampling periods. Interactions between SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19 vaccination status, IMID-treatment modalities and IMID course were explored., Results: In total, 2165 patients with IBD, a dermatological or rheumatological IMID participated. SARS-CoV-2 infection rates increased over the course of the pandemic and were highest in IMID patients that had refused every vaccine. After baseline COVID-19 vaccination, serologic spike (S)-antibody responses were attenuated by particular types of immune-modulating treatment: anti-TNF, rituximab, JAKi, systemic steroids, combined biologic/immunomodulator treatment. Nonetheless, S-antibody concentration increased progressively in patients who received a booster vaccination, reaching 100% seroconversion rate in patients who had received two booster vaccines. Previous SARS-CoV-2 infection was found as a predictor of higher S-antibody response. Patients who had refused every vaccine showed the lowest rates of S-seroconversion (53.8%). Multiple logistic regression did not identify previous SARS-CoV-2 infection as a risk factor for IMID flare-up. Furthermore, no increased risk of IMID flare-up was found with booster vaccination., Conclusions: Altogether, the BELCOMID study provides evidence for the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccination and confirms the importance of repeated booster vaccination in IMID patients.

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is one of the most common, bothersome and difficult to treat skin disorders. Recent introduction of new systemic treatments has revolutionized the management of AD. The goal of this guideline is to provide evidence-based recommendations for the management of patients suffering from atopic dermatitis that easily can be implemented in clinical practice. These recommendations were developed by 11 Belgian AD experts. Comments of all experts on the proposed statements were gathered, followed by an online voting session. The most relevant strategies for the management and treatment of AD in the context of the Belgian health care landscape are discussed. General measures, patient education and adequate topical treatment remain the cornerstones of AD management. For moderate to severe AD, the introduction of biologics and JAK inhibitors show unprecedented efficacy, although currently access is limited to a subgroup of patients meeting the reimbursement criteria.

Introduction: Insights into real-world treatment of atopic dermatitis (AD) are relevant to clinical decision making. The aim of this analysis was to characterize patients who receive dupilumab for AD in a real-world setting., Methods: The GLOBOSTAD registry is an ongoing, longitudinal, prospective, observational study of patients with AD who receive dupilumab according to country-specific prescribing information. We report baseline characteristics, comorbidities and treatment patterns for patients enrolled from July 11, 2019 to March 31, 2022. Analyses are descriptive; no formal statistical comparisons were performed., Results: Nine hundred fifty-two adults and adolescents were enrolled in GLOBOSTAD. Patients had a high disease burden before starting dupilumab: (mean [standard deviation]) percent body surface area affected (44.8 [24.42]), Eczema Area and Severity Index total score (24.8 [12.95]), SCORing Atopic Dermatitis total score (60.5 [16.34]), Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure total score (19.7 [6.37]) and Dermatology Life Quality Index total score (13.7 [7.02]). Overall, 741 (77.8%) patients reported ≥ 1 type 2 inflammatory comorbidities, most frequently allergic rhinitis (492 [51.7%]), asthma (323 [33.9%]), food allergy (294 [30.9%]) or another allergy (274 [28.8%]). In the previous 12 months, 310 (32.6%) patients had received systemic non-steroidal immunosuppressants and 169 (17.8%) systemic corticosteroids; 449 (47.2%) had received topical corticosteroids, most commonly potent topical corticosteroids; 141 (14.8%) had received topical calcineurin inhibitors and 32 (3.4%) ultraviolet therapy. Most (713 [74.9%]) patients started dupilumab because of prior treatment failure., Conclusion: Patients enrolled in GLOBOSTAD demonstrated considerable multidimensional burden of disease across AD signs, symptoms and quality of life despite previous use of systemic and non-systemic AD treatments., Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03992417. Video Abstract., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Introduction: The integrated care pathways for atopic dermatitis (AD-ICPs) aim to bridge the gap between existing AD treatment evidence-based guidelines and expert opinion based on daily practice by offering a structured multidisciplinary plan for patient management of AD. ICPs have the potential to enhance guideline recommendations by combining interventions and aspects from different guidelines, integrating quality assurance, and describing co-ordination of care. Most importantly, patients can enter the ICPs at any level depending on AD severity, resources available in their country, and economic factors such as differences in insurance reimbursement systems., Methods: The GA 2 LEN ADCARE network and partners as well as all stakeholders, abbreviated as the AD-ICPs working group, were involved in the discussion and preparation of the AD ICPs during a series of subgroup workshops and meetings in years 2020 and 2021, after which the document was circulated within all GAL 2 EN ADCARE centres., Results: The AD-ICPs outline the diagnostic procedures, possible co-morbidities, different available treatment options including differential approaches for the pediatric population, and the role of the pharmacists and other stakeholders, as well as remaining unmet needs in the management of AD., Conclusion: The AD-ICPs provide a multidisciplinary plan for improved diagnosis, treatment, and patient feedback in AD management, as well as addressing critical unmet needs, including improved access to care, training specialists, implementation of educational programs, assessment on the impact of climate change, and fostering a personalised treatment approach. By focusing on these key areas, the initiative aims to pave the way for a brighter future in the management of AD., (© 2023 The Authors. Clinical and Translational Allergy published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology.)

Vulvar allergic contact dermatitis (vACD) and irritant contact dermatitis (vICD) are common and accompanied by a great burden on the patient's life. We aimed to review the existing literature on vACD and vICD in order to provide a comprehensive reference list of potential vulvar allergens and irritants, as well as to establish the role of patch testing therein. A systematic search was performed in Medline, Embase and Web of Science using a search string based on the PICO-format. The study protocol was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42021239527). Multiple allergens were identified and included metals, topical drugs, fragrances, preservatives, cosmetic constituents and rubber components. Not all positive reactions were, however, considered to be relevant. Patch testing is the primary tool for the identification of the causal allergens. Testing with standard series alone was proven to be insufficient. Little information about irritants was found. In the future, additional series and late readings should be considered in standard practice. Studies on vICD are scarce and further research is necessary. More population-based research should be performed., (© 2022 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: The risks and impact of COVID19 disease and vaccination in patients with Immune Mediated Inflammatory Diseases (IMID) remain incompletely understood. IMID patients and particularly patients receiving immunosuppressive treatment were excluded from the original, registrational phase-3 COVID19 vaccination efficacy and safety trials. Real-world observational data can help to fill this gap in knowledge. The BELCOMID study aims to explore the interaction between IMIDs, immune-modulating treatment modalities and SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination in a real-life patient cohort., Methods: A multidisciplinary, prospective, observational cohort study was set up. Consecutive patients with IMIDs of the gut, joints and skin followed at two high-volume referral centers were invited. Both patients under conventional treatment or targeted immune modulating therapies were included. Patient data and serological samples were collected at 3 predefined periods (before COVID19 vaccination, before booster vaccination, after booster vaccination). Primary endpoints were positive PCR-test and SARS-CoV-2 serology reflecting previous SARS-CoV-2 infection or vaccination. Associations with IMID treatment modality and IMID disease activity were assessed. Results of the first two inclusion periods (before booster vaccination) are reported., Results: At the first inclusion period data was assessed of 2165 IMID-patients before COVID19 vaccination. At the second inclusion period, data of 2065 patients was collected of whom 1547 had received complete baseline COVID19 vaccination and 222 were partially vaccinated. SARS-CoV-2 infection rate remained low in both groups. No significant increase in IMID flare-up rate was noted in patients with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. Multiple logistic regression analyses did not show a significant influence of IMID-treatment modality or IMID activity on SARS-CoV-2 infection risk (based on PCR positivity or N-serology). Patients treated with conventional immunomodulators, systemic steroids, and patients on advanced therapies such as biologics or small molecules, had reduced S-antibody seroconversion. S-antibody response was also lower in patients without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection and in active smokers. A subset of patients (4.1%) had no S- nor N-antibody seroconversion following complete baseline vaccination., Conclusion: The BELCOMID study results confirm the benign course of COVID19 infection and vaccination in a large real-life IMID-population. However, our results underscore the need for repeated vaccination and smoking cessation in patients with IMIDs treated with immune-modulating therapies or systemic steroids during the pandemic., Competing Interests: The BELCOMID study group received research grants from following pharmaceutical companies: Almirall, Roche, Janssen, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Amgen, Biogen, Mylan, LEO Pharma. These companies had no role in study design, conduct nor reporting of results. JG has served as advisory board member or speaker for Arena, Janssen and Galapagos. JS received speaker’s fees from Pfizer, Abbvie, Ferring, Falk, Takeda, Janssen, and Fresenius. JS received consultancy fees from Janssen, Ferring, Fresenius, Abbvie, Galapagos, Celltrion, Pharmacosmos, and Pharmanovia. Research support: Galapagos and Viatris. JS is supported by a Senior Clinical researcher grant from the Research foundation – Flanders. MF reports being a consultant or speaker for AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Celltrion, Dr Falk, Ferring, Janssen-Cilag, Lamepro, Eli Lilly, Medtronic, Merck Sharp & Dohme MSD, Mylan, Pfizer, Regeneron, Samsung Bioepis, Sandoz, Takeda, Thermo Fisher Scientific, and Truvion Healthcare; and received research grants from AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Janssen, Pfizer, Takeda, and Viatris. JL has received recent grants/speaker fees of and did consulting for AbbVie, Almirall, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celtrion, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, UCB Pharma – not personal but paid to an institutional university account. HL reports receiving consultancy or speaker fees from AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Leo Pharma, Pfizer, – not personal but paid to an institutional university hospital account. TH has received grants and consulting and/or speaking fees from: AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Sandoz, Sanofi, UCB Pharma. AL reports being a consultant or speaker for: AbbVie, Bayer, Falk Pharma, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Sanofi, UCB Pharma. KV reports being a consultant or speaker for Abbvie, Eli Lilly, Novartis,Pfizer, MSD, Acelyrin, UCB Pharma, Leo Pharma, Amgen and has received financial research support from UCB Pharma and Celgene. PV reports being a consultant or speaker for Abbvie, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, MSD, Nordic Pharma, Roularta, Sidekick Health and has received financial research support from Pfizer. EP has received a consultant of speaker’s fees/travel grants on institutional account from Hologic, bioMerieux, DiaSorin, Novosanis. TL has received financial support for research from Abbvie, Mylan, MSD, Mundipharma, Biogen, Janssen, Pfizer and Takeda, Speaker fees fromFerring, MSD, Abbvie, Janssen, Amgen, Fresenius Kabi, Galapagos and Takeda and Consultancy fee from Janssen, Galapagos, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Fresenius Kabi and Takeda. SV has received grants from AbbVie, J&J, Pfizer, Takeda and Galapagos; and consulting and/or speaking fees from: AbbVie, AbolerIS Pharma, AgomAb, Alimentiv, Arena Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Avaxia, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, CVasThera, Cytoki Pharma, Dr Falk Pharma, Ferring, Galapagos, Genentech-Roche, Gilead, GSK, Hospira, Imidomics, Janssen, J&J, Lilly, Materia Prima, MiroBio, Morphic, MrMHealth, Mundipharma, MSD, Pfizer, Prodigest, Progenity, Prometheus, Robarts Clinical Trials, Second Genome, Shire, Surrozen, Takeda, Theravance, Tillots Pharma AG, Zealand Pharma. The remaining author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Geldof, Truyens, Sabino, Ferrante, Lambert, Lapeere, Hillary, Van Laethem, de Vlam, Verschueren, Padalko, Lobaton and Vermeire.)

Background: Anisakiasis is an emerging zoonosis caused by the fish parasitic nematode Anisakis infecting the gastrointestinal tract., Case Presentation: We describe a case of a 58-year-old woman diagnosed with gastro-allergic anisakiasis, in which the patient developed an acute food-induced IgE-mediated hypersensitivity reaction as well as concurrent gastro-intestinal manifestations after consumption of raw fish. The patient presented with epigastric pain, anaphylaxis and acute dysphagia caused by eosinophilic oesophagitis., Discussion: Anisakis allergy should be considered as causative agent in patients presenting with acute urticarial rash, anaphylaxis and/or abdominal manifestations, especially when symptoms occur after consumption of seafood. Moreover, eosinophilic oesophagitis may be a rare but important complication of Anisakis infection. Endoscopic evaluation with esophageal biopsies should therefore be considered if suggestive symptoms are present. Patients with confirmed gastroallergic anisakiasis are advised to properly freeze or cook fish prior to consumption, although caution is advised, since heat-stable allergen proteins have been described. An adrenaline auto-injector should be prescribed.

Large-scale vaccination strategies are currently being deployed against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-Cov-2). Whether systemic medication for skin diseases affects the efficacy of vaccination and whether temporary interruption or extension of the dosing interval is necessary is under debate. Most immunomodulating/immunosuppressive drugs only affect vaccine-induced immune responses to a limited or moderate extent, preserving sufficient immunity in most patients. Mycophenolate mofetil, Janus kinase inhibitors, and rituximab require a more cautious approach, and judicious timing of vaccination might be appropriate in patients receiving these treatments. It should be noted that, for most drugs except methotrexate, data on the length of the interruption period to restore vaccine-induced immune responses to normal levels are either very limited or absent. In these cases, only the drug half-life can be used as a practical guideline. In most patients, systemic medication can be continued through the vaccination process, although case-by-case decisions can be considered., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Introduction: Literature shows upcoming allergy to chlorhexidine due to the widespread use of the disinfectant within and outside surgical settings. Only a few case reports have been published regarding the use of topical chlorhexidine disinfectant outside surgery and only a minority of these within the pediatric population., Case Report: We present a case-report of a teenager, treated for acute lymphoblastic leukemia who developed an anaphylactic shock after repeated chlorhexidine use for skin disinfection at the insertion of a central venous catheter during his chemotherapy treatment. Preceding minor symptoms such as local swelling and pruritus were not recognized as possible allergy to chlorhexidine. Management and outcome: He was treated with two doses of intramuscular adrenaline and transferred to the pediatric intensive care unit where he fully recovered. Specific IgE testing was positive for chlorhexidine. A total avoidance of chlorhexidine was instructed., Discussion: A similar case was published regarding an anaphylaxis after use of chlorhexidine disinfectant for a dialysis catheter. Almost all other case reports of anaphylactic shock were found within surgical settings or after insertion of an impregnated central venous catheter/urine catheter. We suggest that some of the disinfectant might have been flushed in the catheter and then caused an anaphylactic reaction. The link between symptoms and chlorhexidine was not made until an anaphylactic reaction occurred. Literature data show that chlorhexidine often causes mild preceding symptoms before an anaphylaxis occurs. So let awareness arise around this 'hidden allergen' of which warning reactions often are being missed.

Background: Real-world evidence describing the benefits of recommended therapies and their impact on the quality of life (QoL) of chronic urticaria (CU) patients is limited., Objective: To investigate disease burden, current treatment schedule, and the use of clinical resources by patients with H 1 -antihistamine-refractory CU in Europe., Methods: AWARE (A World-wide Antihistamine-Refractory chronic urticaria patient Evaluation) is a global, prospective, non-interventional study in the real-world setting, sponsored by the manufacturer of omalizumab. Disease characteristics, pharmacological treatments, and health-related QoL of patients (N = 2727) ≥18 years of age diagnosed with H 1 -antihistamine-refractory chronic spontaneous urticaria (without inducible urticaria) for >2 months are reported here., Results: Of the 2727 patients included, 1232 (45.2%) and 1278 (46.9%) were successfully followed up for any assessment and for the key outcome, the urticaria control test (UCT) score, respectively, and patients with complete remission (14.1%) were excluded from analyses.The proportion of patients with uncontrolled CSU (UCT score <12) dropped from 78% (n/N = 1641/2104) at baseline to 28.7% (n/N = 269/936) after two years of participation in the AWARE study. In addition, the proportion of patients with no impact of CSU on their QoL (assessed by the Dermatological Life Quality Index) increased to 57% (n/N = 664/1164) from 18.7% (n/N = 491/2621) at baseline. Emergency room visits (2.4% [n/N = 7/296] vs 33.5% [n/N = 779/2322]) and hospital stays (1.7% [n/N = 5/296] vs 24.2% [n/N = 561/2322]) reduced at Month 24 vs baseline. Overall, 23.2% (n/N = 26/112) patients on non-sedating H 1 -antihistamines (nsAH) and 41.9% (n/N = 44/105) patients on up-dosed nsAH had uncontrolled CSU (UCT <12) at Month 24. In omalizumab-treated patients, 27.1% (n/N = 78/288) had uncontrolled CSU at Month 24., Conclusion: These data confirm improvements for most patients with CSU over a 2-year follow-up period. Further studies are needed to understand the differences between guideline recommendations and reported management., (© 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Psoriasis and atopic dermatitis are chronic skin diseases that greatly affect the quality of life. Both diseases can be triggered or exacerbated by stress., Objective: We aimed to differentiate personality traits between patients with chronic skin conditions and people treated for stress in a pilot study., Methods: Patients participating voluntarily in educational programs in Belgium and Switzerland were recruited to complete personality trait questionnaires, including the Temperament and Character Inventory (TCI) and the Tridimensional Personality Questionnaire (TPQ). A comparison was made with patients treated for work-related stress., Results: A total of 48 and 91 patients suffering from skin diseases and work-related stress, respectively, were included in the study. Based on the questionnaires, we found that dermatology patients were less persistent and impulsive than those with work-related stress. Dermatology patients also exhibited more rigidness and less focus on performance. Finally, patients with work-related stress seem more likely to change in response to health-promoting programs than patients with chronic dermatoses., Conclusion: Patients with chronic skin diseases may perceive and cope with stress differently in comparison to patients with work-related stress due to inherent personality traits. Therefore, stress coping mechanisms may differ among different diseases. More research is needed into the design of educational interventions and the impact of personality traits in disease-specific groups., (© 2020 S. Karger AG, Basel.)