Association between maternal dupilumab exposure and pregnancy outcomes in patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: A nationwide retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: There is limited epidemiological evidence on outcomes associated with dupilumab exposure during pregnancy; monitoring pregnancy outcomes in large populations is required. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the potential association between exposure to dupilumab in pregnant women with atopic dermatitis and any adverse pregnancy, neonatal, congenital and post-partum outcomes. METHODS: We performed a multicentre retrospective cohort study across 19 Italian tertiary referral hospital. Childbearing women were eligible if aged 18-49 years and carried out the pregnancy between 1 October 2018 and 1 September 2022. RESULTS: We retrospectively screened records of 5062 patients receiving dupilumab regardless of age and gender, identifying 951 female atopic dermatitis patients of childbearing age, 29 of whom had been exposed to the drug during pregnancy (3%). The median duration of dupilumab treatment prior to conception was 22.5 weeks (range: 3-118). The median time of exposure to the drug during pregnancy was 6 weeks (range: 2-24). All the documented pregnancies were unplanned, and the drug was discontinued in all cases once pregnancy status was reported. The comparison of the study cohort and the control group found no significant drug-associated risk for adverse pregnancy, congenital, neonatal or post-partum outcomes. The absence of a statistically significant effect of exposure on the event was confirmed by bivariate analysis and multivariate analysis adjusted for other confounding factors. CONCLUSIONS: This cohort of pregnant patients exposed to dupilumab adds to the existing evidence concerning the safety of biologic agents in pregnancy. No safety issues were identified regarding the primary outcome assessed. In clinical practice, these data provide reassurance in case of dupilumab exposure during the first trimester. However, the continuous use of dupilumab throughout pregnancy warrants further research.

Contact allergy to SIDAPA baseline series allergens in patients with eyelid dermatitis: An Italian multicentre study.

BACKGROUND: Eyelid dermatitis is a frequent reason of dermatological consultation. Its aetiology is not univocal, being contact dermatitis, both allergic and irritant, the most frequent. The primary sources of allergen exposure include cosmetics, metals, and topical medications, from direct, indirect, or airborne contact. OBJECTIVES: To define the frequency of positive patch test reactions to SIDAPA baseline series allergens, to document positive allergens, and to precise the final diagnosis in patients with eyelid involvement. METHODS: A total of 8557 consecutive patients from 12 Italian Dermatology Clinics underwent patch testing with SIDAPA baseline series in 2018 and 2019. Patients were divided into two groups: (i) with eyelid involvement with or without other involved sites (E-Group) and (ii) without eyelid involvement (NE-Group). The final diagnosis and the frequency of positive relevant patch test reactions were evaluated. RESULTS: E-Group consisted of 688 patients (females 78.6%, mean age 45.3 years), 8.0% of 8557 consecutively patch-tested patients. The final diagnosis in E-Group was ADC in 42.4%, ICD in 34.2%, and AD in 30.5%. The highest reaction rates were elicited by nickel sulphate and methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone in both E-Group and NE-Group, even if these allergens were significantly more frequently positive in NE-Group patients than in E-Group ones. Positive patch test reactions to fragrance Mix II, dimethylaminopropylamine, and sorbitan sesquiolate were significantly more frequent in E-Group patients than in NE-Group ones. CONCLUSIONS: Eyelid dermatitis is a frequent dermatological complaint. Allergic contact dermatitis is the most frequent diagnosis commonly caused by nickel sulphate, isothiazolinones, and fragrances. The surfactants dimethylaminopropylamine and sorbitan sesquioleate are emerging causes of eyelid allergic contact dermatitis.

Severely compromised supply of patch test allergens in Europe hampers adequate diagnosis of occupational and non-occupational contact allergy. A European Society of Contact Dermatitis (ESCD), European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI), European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) task forces 'Contact Dermatitis' and 'Occupational Skin Disease' position paper.

Patch testing is the only clinically applicable diagnostic method for Type IV allergy. The availability of Type IV patch test (PT) allergens in Europe, however, is currently scarce. This severely compromises adequate diagnostics of contact allergy, leading to serious consequences for the affected patients. Against this background, the European Society of Contact Dermatitis (ESCD) has created a task force (TF) (i) to explore the current availability of PT substances in different member states, (ii) to highlight some of the unique characteristics of Type IV vs. other allergens and (iii) to suggest ways forward to promote and ensure availability of high-quality patch testing substances for the diagnosis of Type IV allergies throughout Europe. The suggestions of the TF on how to improve the availability of PT allergens are supported by the ESCD, the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, and the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology and intend to provide potential means to resolve the present medical crisis.

The European baseline series and recommended additions: 2023.

The European baseline series was last updated in 2019. This article discusses the reasoning behind a further iteration of the series for 2023.

European patch test results with audit allergens as candidates for inclusion in the European Baseline Series, 2019/20: Joint results of the ESSCAA and the EBSB working groups of the ESCD, and the GEIDACC.

BACKGROUND: In 2019, a number of allergens (haptens), henceforth, "the audit allergens," were considered as potential additions to the European Baseline Series (EBS), namely, sodium metabisulfite, 2-bromo-2-nitropropane-1,3-diol, diazolidinyl urea, imidazolidinyl urea, Compositae mix II (2.5% or 5% pet), linalool hydroperoxides (lin-OOH), limonene hydroperoxides (lim-OOH), benzisothiazolinone (BIT), octylisothiazolinone (OIT), decyl glucoside, and lauryl glucoside; Evernia furfuracea (tree moss), was additionally tested by some departments as well. OBJECTIVES: To collect further data on patch test reactivity and clinical relevance of the audit allergens in consecutive patients across Europe. METHODS: Patch test data covering the audit allergens in 2019 and 2020 were collected by those departments of the European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies testing these, as well as further collaborators from the EBS working group of the European Society of Contact Dermatitis (ESCD), and the Spanish Grupo Español de Investigación en Dermatitis de Contacto y Alergia Cutánea. As patch test outcome, reactions between day (D) 3 and D5 were considered. RESULTS: Altogether n = 12 403 patients were tested with any of the audit allergen. Positive reactions were most common to lin-OOH 1% pet. (8.74% [95%CI: 8.14-9.37%]), followed by lin-OOH 0.5% pet., and lim-OOH 0.3% pet (5.41% [95% CI: 4.95-5.89%]). Beyond these terpene hydroperoxides, BIT 0.1% pet. was the second most common allergen with 4.72% (95% CI: 4.2-5.28%), followed by sodium metabisulfite 1% pet. (3.75% [95%CI: 3.32-4.23%]) and Compositae mix 5% pet. (2.31% [95% CI: 1.84-2.87%]). For some allergens, clinical relevance was frequently difficult to ascertain. CONCLUSIONS: Despite many positive patch test reactions, it remains controversial whether lin- and lim-OOH should be tested routinely, while at least the two preservatives BIT and sodium metabisulfite appear suitable. The present results are a basis for further discussion and ultimately decision on their implementation into routine testing among the ESCD members.

DECISA Project (DErmatology Clinics in Italy: Survey on Alitretinoin): A real-life retrospective cohort multicenter study on 438 subjects with chronic hand eczema.

Alitretinoin is the only systemic agent approved to treat moderate-severe chronic hand eczema (CHE) unresponsive to potent topical corticosteroids. No nationwide Italian data regarding real-life efficacy, safety, and tolerability of treatment are available. The DECISA project (DErmatology Clinics in Italy: Survey on Alitretinoin) retrospectively examined data from a registry including 15 Dermatology Clinics authorized to prescription of alitretinoin for CHE patients. Disease severity was assessed at baseline, and after 3 and 6 months of treatment, using the 5-point Physician Global Assessment (PGA) and the modified Total Lesion-Symptoms-Severity (mTLSS) scores. Between November 2010 and July 2018, data of 248 male and 190 female patients (mean age 49.71 ± 13.20 years) treated with alitretinoin were collected. Of them, 43.2% had irritant contact dermatitis, 22.2% allergic contact dermatitis, 18.0% atopic dermatitis, 16.7% mixed (irritant/allergic) type of eczema. At 3 months, the 420 re-evaluated patients showed significantly reduced mTLSS and PGA (P < .0000001 vs baseline for both); PGA was clear/almost clear in 35.6% of cases. At 6 months, the 341 re-evaluated patients showed significant (P < .0000001) improvement of mTLSS and PGA vs baseline and 3 months (PGA clear/almost clear: 41.4%). Relapses occurred in 125 patients; 58 underwent an additional course of alitretinoin, with similarly good results. No relevant safety issues were reported; 86 patients experienced adverse effects, which forced 40 to prematurely stop treatment. The DECISA project results confirm the real-life efficacy, safety and tolerability of alitretinoin in the treatment of moderate to severe CHE refractory to standard topical therapies.

Quality of life in patients with allergic and immunologic skin diseases: in the eye of the beholder.

Allergic and immunologic skin diseases negatively impact the quality of life (QoL) of affected patients with detrimental consequences. Nonetheless, in everyday clinical practice the evaluation of QoL is often overlooked. Considering the increasing prevalence of atopic dermatitis, allergic contact dermatitis, hereditary angioedema, cutaneous mastocytosis, and urticaria, it is essential to determine the effects of allergic and immunologic skin diseases on QoL. A joint meeting (GET TOGETHER 2021) of the Italian Society of Allergology, Asthma and Clinical Immunology (SIAAIC) and the Italian Society of Allergological, Occupational and Environmental Dermatology (SIDAPA) aimed to summarize the features of the main QoL tools used in these diseases and to describe the extent of QoL impairment as well as the impact of treatments on QoL, particularly biologic therapies. The assessment of QoL in patients with allergic and immunologic skin diseases relies on generic, organ-specific and disease-specific questionnaires. While generic and organ-specific questionnaires allow comparison between different diseases, disease-specific questionnaires are designed and validated for specific cohorts: the QoL Index for Atopic Dermatitis (QoLIAD) and the Childhood Atopic Dermatitis Impact Scale (CADIS) in atopic dermatitis, the ACD-11 in allergic contact dermatitis, the Angioedema QoL Questionnaire (AE-QoL) and the Hereditary Angioedema QoL questionnaire (HAE-QoL) in hereditary angioedema, the Mastocytosis QoL Questionnaires (MCQoL e MQLQ) in cutaneous mastocytosis, and the Chronic Urticaria QoL questionnaire (CU-Q2oL) in urticaria. Among the many factors that variably contribute to QoL impairment, pruritus can represent the leading cause of patient discomfort. Biologic therapies significantly ameliorate QoL in atopic dermatitis, hereditary angioedema, mastocytosis and chronic urticaria. In general, adequate management strategies are essential for improving QoL in patients with allergic and immunologic skin diseases.

Myroxylon pereirae (balsam of Peru): Still worth testing?

BACKGROUND: Because Myroxylon pereirae (MP), or balsam of Peru, is nowadays almost not used "as such," and fragrance mix 1 (FM1) apparently is more sensitive in detecting fragrance allergy, the usefulness of testing MP in baseline series was recently questioned. OBJECTIVES: Identification of the number of clinically relevant patch test reactions to MP not detected by FM1. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 12 030 patients patch tested with MP and FM1 for contact dermatitis between January 2018 and December 2019 in 13 Italian dermatology clinics. RESULTS: Four hundred thirty-nine patients (3.6%) had a positive patch test reaction to MP; 437 (3.6%) had a positive patch test reaction to FM1. Positive reactions to both MP and FM1 were observed in 119 subjects (1.0%), 310 (2.6%) reacted to MP only, 304 (2.5%) to FM1 only, 5 to MP and sorbitan sesquioleate (SSO), 9 to FM1 and SSO, and 5 to MP, FM1, and SSO. Single sensitizations were clinically relevant in 75.2% of cases for MP (62.9% current, 12.3% past) and 76.3% for FM1 (70.1% current, 6.2% past). CONCLUSIONS: Based on our results, MP appears to be still worth testing along with FM1 in baseline series, because it allows detection of a remarkable number of fragrance allergies, often relevant, which would be otherwise missed.

Patch testing of budesonide in Italy: The SIDAPA baseline series experience, 2018-2019.

BACKGROUND: Budesonide was included in the European Baseline Series in 2000 as the most suitable marker forcorticosteroid hypersensitivity. In the last two decades, a decreasing trend of budesonide allergy has been observed. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the prevalence of positive patch test reactions to budesonide in a large, Italian patch test population, characterizing patients according to MOAHLFA index and evaluating the benefit with extended readings of budesonide patch test. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of patient demographics and patch test results over a 2-year period (2018-2019) was performed at 14 patch test clinics in Italy. RESULTS: Ninety out of 14 544 (0.6%) patients reacted to budesonide 0.01% pet.. Positive reactions were mild in 54.4% and late readings at day 7 showed new positive reactions in 37.8% of patients. The MOAHLFA index showed a significant positive association with male gender, atopic dermatitis, and age >40 years and a significant negative association with hand and face dermatitis. CONCLUSIONS: We documented a low prevalence of budesonide allergy in Italy, confirming its decreasing trend recently reported in the literature. Nevertheless, budesonide needs to be maintained in the baseline series for its good ability to detect corticosteroid sensitization.

Formaldehyde 2% is not a useful means of detecting allergy to formaldehyde releasers- results of the ESSCA network, 2015-2018.

BACKGROUND: Studies suggest that patch testing with formaldehyde releasers (FRs) gives significant additional information to formaldehyde 1% aq. and should be considered for addition to the European baseline series (EBS). It is not known if this is also true for formaldehyde 2% aq. OBJECTIVES: To determine the frequency of sensitization to formaldehyde 2% aq. and co-reactivity with FRs. To establish whether there is justification for including FRs in the EBS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 4-year, multi-center retrospective analysis of patients with positive patch test reactions to formaldehyde 2% aq. and five FRs. RESULTS: A maximum of 15 067 patients were tested to formaldehyde 2% aq. and at least one FR. The percentage of isolated reactions to FR, without co-reactivity to, formaldehyde 2% aq. for each FR were: 46.8% for quarternium-15 1% pet.; 67.4% imidazolidinyl urea 2% pet.; 64% diazolidinyl urea 2% pet.; 83.3% 1,3-dimethylol-5, 5-dimethyl hydantoin (DMDM) hydantoin 2% pet. and 96.3% 2-bromo-2-nitropropane-1,3-diol 0.5% pet. This demonstrates that co-reactivity varies between FRs and formaldehyde, from being virtually non-existent in 2-bromo-2-nitropropane-1,3-diol 0.5% pet. (Cohen's kappa: 0, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.02 to 0.02)], to only weak concordance for quaternium-15 [Cohen's kappa: 0.22, 95%CI 0.16 to 0.28)], where Cohen's kappa value of 1 would indicate full concordance. CONCLUSIONS: Formaldehyde 2% aq. is an inadequate screen for contact allergy to the formaldehyde releasers, which should be considered for inclusion in any series dependant on the frequency of reactions to and relevance of each individual allergen.

A survey of members of the European Surveillance System on Contact Allergy and the EU project "StanDerm" to identify allergens tested in cosmetic series across Europe.

BACKGROUND: There is currently no agreed cosmetic series for use across Europe. OBJECTIVES: To establish allergens currently tested in local and national cosmetic series. METHOD: Members of the European Surveillance System on Contact Allergy and the European Cooperation in Science and Technology project TD1206 ("StanDerm") were surveyed to establish their current practice. RESULTS: A wide range of allergens was tested but there was significant variation between centres on the allergens considered to be important in screening for allergy to cosmetics. The number of allergens tested in addition to the baseline series varied between 2 and 50. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need for further investigation to establish the frequency and relevance of reactions to cosmetic allergens to enable an agreed evidence-based cosmetic series to be produced. Criteria for inclusion need to be established.

A proposal to create an extension to the European baseline series.

BACKGROUND: The current European baseline series consists of 30 allergens, and was last updated in 2015. OBJECTIVES: To use data from the European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies (ESSCA) to propose an extension to the European baseline series in response to changes in environmental exposures. METHODS: Data from departmental and national extensions to the baseline series, together with some temporary additions from departments contributing to the ESSCA, were collated during 2013-2014. RESULTS: In total, 31689 patients were patch tested in 46 European departments. Many departments and national groups already consider the current European baseline series to be a suboptimal screen, and use their own extensions to it. The haptens tested are heterogeneous, although there are some consistent themes. Potential haptens to include in an extension to the European baseline series comprise sodium metabisulfite, formaldehyde-releasing preservatives, additional markers of fragrance allergy, propolis, Compositae mix, and 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate. CONCLUSION: In combination with other published work from the ESSCA, changes to the current European baseline series are proposed for discussion. As well as addition of the allergens listed above, it is suggested that primin and clioquinol should be deleted from the series, owing to reduced environmental exposure.

European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies (ESSCA): polysensitization, 2009-2014.

BACKGROUND: Polysensitization, defined as being allergic to three or more haptens from the European baseline series, is considered to reflect increased susceptibility to developing a contact allergy, and is likely to be associated with an impaired quality of life. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the prevalences of polysensitization across Europe and to analyse factors associated with polysensitization. METHODS: Patch test data collected by the European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies (ESSCA; www.essca-dc.org) in consecutively patch tested patients from January 2009 to December 2014, comprising 11 countries and 57 departments, were retrospectively analysed. RESULTS: A total of 86 416 patients were available for analysis, showing a standardized prevalence of polysensitization of 7.02%, ranging from 12.7% (Austria) to 4.6% (Italy). Allergen pairs with the strongest association are reported for the total population, for South Europe, and for North/Central Europe. Overall, polysensitized patients showed a higher percentage of extreme (+++) positive patch test reactions than oligosensitized patients. Female sex, occupational dermatitis and age > 40 years were risk factors for polysensitization. CONCLUSIONS: The varying prevalences of polysensitization across Europe most likely reflect differences in patient characteristics and referral patterns between departments. Known risk factors for polysensitization are confirmed in a European dermatitis population.