Orofacial granulomatosis: Clinical and therapeutic features in an Italian cohort and review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: Orofacial granulomatosis (OFG) is characterized by granulomatous inflammation of the soft tissues of maxillofacial region. We explored OFG patients from 10 different Italian centers and summarized the most recent literature data. METHODS: A review of patients with OFG was carried out. An extensive online literature search was performed to identify studies reporting diagnosis and management of OFG. RESULTS: Thirty-nine patients were recruited between January 2018 and February 2020. Most of them (97.4%) displayed involvement of the lips, and 28.2% suffered from Melkersson-Rosenthal syndrome. Two patients received diagnosis of CD and one patient of sarcoidosis, suggesting secondary OFG. Oral aphthosis and cervical lymphadenopathy were also described. The mean diagnostic delay was 3.4 years. Histological evaluation was performed in 34/39 patients (87.2%); non-caseating granulomas were found in 73.5% of them. Neurological symptoms (28.2%), gastrointestinal symptoms in absence of overt inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) (20.5%), and atopy (35.9%) were also identified. Therapeutic approaches varied among the centers. Steroids (51.3%) were used with good or partial results. Anti-TNF-α and anti-IgE monoclonal antibodies were used in 6 (15.4%) and 1 (2.6%) patients, respectively, with variable results. Surgery was the choice for 2 patients with good response. CONCLUSIONS: OFG is a rare and neglected disease showing multiple clinical phenotypes. While early diagnosis is crucial, management is difficult and highly dependent on the expertise of clinicians due to the lack of international guidelines. There is a need to establish registry databases and address challenges of long-term management.

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.

Hereditary angioedema: current therapeutic management and future approaches.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The aim of this review is to provide an account of the focus of therapeutic strategies for hereditary angioedema (HAE), give a brief overview of those used in the past and set aside and toughly discuss those currently available as first line. Further research is ongoing and the future therapeutic approaches that are still in different phases of study will be reviewed as well. RECENT FINDINGS: In the last two decades, major research advancements on HAE pathophysiology and management were made and numerous novel therapeutic options are now available. Compared to the past, drugs available nowadays are more effective, well tolerated, and possibly have a more convenient administration route. Moreover, numerous other drugs with innovative mechanisms of action are under development. SUMMARY: HAE is a rare genetic disease that if not promptly treated, it can lead to death from asphyxiation. Furthermore, due to its disfiguring and painful manifestations, HAE implies an important burden on the quality of life. Recently, following great research progresses on HAE therapy, evidence-based guidelines on HAE management were released. The therapeutic landscape of HAE is still under florid development, and it is possible novel treatments will remarkably revolutionize HAE management in the future.

Polyethylene Glycol and Polysorbate 80 Skin Tests in the Context of an Allergic Risk Assessment for Hypersensitivity Reactions to Anti-SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccines.

Concern has arisen about hypersensitivity reactions in patients with allergic reactions to drugs containing polyethylene glycol (PEG) or polysorbate 80 (PS80), excipients of currently available anti-SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines. However, the actual utility of PEG and PS80 skin allergy testing is currently still debated. We retrospectively analyzed all cases of patients on whom we performed allergometric skin tests for PEG and PS80 in the context of a pre-vaccination screening (for patients with multiple hypersensitivity reactions to drugs for which these excipients were among the suspected agents) or following suspected hypersensitivity reactions to anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. A total of 134 tests were performed for PEG and PS80, eight of which produced uninterpretable results (due to dermographism or non-specific reactions). Of the remaining 126 cases (85 pre-vaccinal and 41 post-vaccine reactions), 16 (12.7%) were positive for PEG and/or PS80. Stratifying by clinical indication, there were no statistically significant differences in the proportion of positive tests between patients evaluated in the context of the pre-vaccination screening and those evaluated after a vaccine reaction (10.6% vs. 17.1%, respectively, p = 0.306). Allergometric skin tests for PEG and PS80 in our case series resulted positive in an unexpectedly high proportion of patients, suggesting that testing for allergy to these two excipients should not be ignored in case of reasonable clinical suspicion.

Successful SARS-CoV-2 vaccine allergy risk-management: The experience of a large Italian University Hospital.

BACKGROUND: Novel Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines have been approved recently, and public concern regarding the risk of anaphylactic reactions arose after a few cases during the first days of mass vaccination. Polyethylene glycol (PEG) has been suggested as the most probable culprit agent for allergic reactions. OBJECTIVE: We describe the allergy work-up protocol implemented for the vaccination campaign in our Center, aiming to allow the greatest number of people to be vaccinated safely. METHODS: The protocol included the self-report of a history of suspected drug or vaccine allergies, and subsequent teleconsultation and allergometric tests for PEG and Polysorbate 80 (PS80). A desensitizing protocol of vaccine administration was applied to patients sensitized only to PS80, and to those with a suspect allergic reaction after the first vaccine dose. RESULTS: 10.2% (414 out of 4042) of the entire vaccine population have been screened: only one patient resulted allergic to PEG and therefore excluded from the vaccination. Another patient was sensitized to PS80 only and safely vaccinated applying the desensitizing protocol. Seven subjects without a previous history of allergic disease experienced suspect hypersensitivity reactions to the first administered dose: one of them resulted allergic to PEG and was excluded from the second dose, while the others safely completed the vaccination with the desensitizing protocol. CONCLUSION: A careful allergological risk-assessment protocol significantly reduces the number of patients who would have avoided SARS-CoV-2 vaccination for their allergies and to effectively identify and manage those rare patients with sensitization to PEGs and/or PS80.

Allergy clinics in times of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: an integrated model.

BACKGROUND: Almost the entire World is experiencing the Coronavirus-Disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, responsible, at the end of May 2020, of more than five million people infected worldwide and about 350,000 deaths. In this context, a deep reorganization of allergy clinics, in order to ensure proper diagnosis and care despite of social distancing measures expose, is needed. MAIN TEXT: The reorganization of allergy clinics should include programmed checks for severe and poorly controlled patients, application of digital medicine service for mild-to-moderate disease in well-controlled ones, postponement of non urgent diagnostic work-ups and domiciliation of therapies, whenever possible. As far as therapies, allergen immunotherapy (AIT) should not be stopped and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) fits perfectly for this purpose, since a drug home-delivery service can be activated for the entire pandemic duration. Moreover, biologic agents for severe asthma, chronic spontaneous urticaria and atopic dermatitis should be particularly encouraged to achieve best control possible of severe disease in times of COVID-19 and, whenever possible, home-delivery and self-administration should be the preferred choice. CONCLUSION: During COVID-19 pandemic, allergists have the responsibility of balancing individual patients' needs with public health issues, and innovative tools, such as telemedicine and digital medicine services, can be helpful to reduce the risk of viral spreading while delivering up-to-date personalized care.

Rapid infusions of human normal immunoglobulin 50g/l are safe and well tolerated in immunodeficiencies and immune thrombocytopenia.

Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) is accepted as an effective and well-tolerated treatment for primary and secondary immunodeficiencies (ID) and immune thrombocytopenia (ITP). Adverse reactions of IVIg are usually mild, comprising transient flu-like symptoms, change in blood pressure and tachycardia. However IVIg therapy can be burdensome for both patients and healthcare facilities, since the infusion may take up to 4h to administer. The objective of our multicentre, prospective, open-label phase III trial was to evaluate the tolerability and safety of human normal immunoglobulin 50g/l (Ig VENA) at high intravenous infusion rates in adult patients with ID and ITP who had previously tolerated IVIg treatment, by progressively increasing infusion rate up to 8ml/kg/hr. 39 ID patients received three infusions, 5 ITP patients received up to a maximum of 5 infusions for a maximum of 5days. Overall 55 adverse events were reported in 18 patients, and all were mild and self-limiting. Two serious adverse events occurred in ID patients and 1 in an ITP patient; none was fatal or treatment-related. No clinically significant changes or abnormalities were observed in vital signs, laboratory results and HRQoL. In summary, in this study, more rapid IVIg infusions were well tolerated by ID and ITP patients, while maintaining their quality of life, helping to minimise the time spent in outpatient hospital visiting to potentially optimise adherence to treatment.