Short-, mid- and long-term efficacy of dupilumab in moderate to severe atopic dermatitis: a real life multicenter Italian study on 2576 patients.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of dupilumab in atopic dermatitis (AD) have been defined in clinical trials but limited real-world evidence on long term treatment outcomes are currently available to inform clinical decisions. OBJECTIVES: to describe long-term effectiveness and safety of dupilumab up to 48 months in patients with moderate-to-severe AD. METHODS: a multicenter, retrospective, dynamic cohort study was conducted to assess long term effectiveness and safety of dupilumab in patients with moderate to severe AD in a real-world setting. Predictors of minimal disease activity (MDA) optimal treatment target criteria (defined as the simultaneous achievement of EASI90, itch NRS score ≤1, sleep NRS score ≤1 and DLQI ≤1) were investigated. RESULTS: 2576 patients were enrolled from June 2018 to July 2022. MDA optimal treatment target criteria were achieved by 506 (21.91%), 769 (40.63%), 628 (50.36%), 330 (55.37%) and 58 (54.72%) of those that reached 4, 12, 24, 36 and 48 months of follow-up, respectively. Logistic regression revealed a negative effect on MDA achievement for conjunctivitis and food allergy at all timepoints. Adverse events (AE) were mild and were observed in 373 (15.78%), 166 (7.02%), 83 (6.43%), 27 (4.50%) and 5 (4.55%) of those that reached 4, 12, 24, 36 and 48 months of follow-up. Conjunctivitis was the most frequently reported AE during the available follow-up. AE led to treatment discontinuation in <1% of patients during the evaluated time periods. CONCLUSION: High long-term effectiveness and safety of dupilumab were confirmed in this dynamic cohort of patients with moderate to severe AD, regardless of clinical phenotype and course at baseline. Further research will be needed to investigate the effect of Th2 comorbidities and disease duration on the response to dupilumab and other newer therapeutics for AD.

Multidisciplinary Decision-Making-ITAlian Consensus After Two Years of Real Practice on the Management of Severe Uncontrolled CRSwNP by Biologics (ITACA Study).

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: We aimed to reach an Italian multidisciplinary consensus on some crucial aspects of treatment decision making in CRSwNP, following 2 years of clinical experience in order to support specialists in the management of CRSwNP in clinical practice. We addressed issues relating to therapeutic decision-making and shared criteria for the treatment choice, as well as appropriate timing and criteria for evaluating treatment response, and highlighted the need for repeated multidisciplinary assessments. RECENT FINDINGS: A national survey has been conducted recently to understand how rhinology practice has changed in Italy with the advent of biologics and how this affects patients with uncontrolled, severe CRSwNP. Despite the many published consensus documents, practical recommendations, and protocols on the use of biologics in CRSwNP, heterogenous behaviors in practice are still observed mainly conditioned by the novelty of the topic. The consensus procedure followed a modified Delphi approach. The scientific board included 18 otorhinolaryngologists and 8 allergists, who selected the 4 main topics to be addressed and developed overall 20 statements. Consensus on these statements was sought by a larger group of 48 additional experts, through two rounds of voting, the first web-based, the second in presence with discussion and possible refinement of the statements. The statements reaching an average score ≥ 7 at the second voting round were approved. Five statements were proposed for each of the following topics: baseline evaluation of patients eligible for biologic therapy; choice between different therapeutic options; assessment of the response to biologic treatment; multidisciplinary management. At the first voting round, 19 out of the 20 statements reached a mean score ≥ 7. Following the discussion and a few consequent amendments, at the second round of voting all the 20 statements were approved.

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.

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.

Safety of omalizumab in chronic urticaria during pregnancy: a real-life study.

BACKGROUND: Managing a pregnant patient with chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) is often challenging. Recent data have shown that most CSU treatments in pregnant patients are second-generation H1 antihistamines (sgAHs), while data on the safety of omalizumab are scant. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate, in a routine clinical practice setting, the efficacy and safety of omalizumab in patients with severe CSU refractory to sgAHs who either became pregnant during treatment or who started the drug during pregnancy. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of women aged ≥ 18 years who were pregnant, who received one or more doses of omalizumab at any time during their pregnancy or who were taking omalizumab at the time of, or in the 8 weeks before, conception. RESULTS: Twenty-nine pregnant patients were evaluated: 23 (79%) conceived a child while taking omalizumab (group A), while 6 (21%) started omalizumab treatment during pregnancy (group B). Among patients in group A, we observed 23 births (21 liveborn singletons and 1 liveborn twin pair) and 1 miscarriage. Fifteen (65%) patients discontinued omalizumab after confirming their pregnancy, while eight (35%) were exposed to omalizumab during their entire pregnancy. In group B, omalizumab was introduced at a mean (SD) 10.83 (3.60) weeks' gestation and all patients were exposed to it until the end of pregnancy. In this group, there were seven liveborn infants (five singletons and one twin pair). No adverse events, pregnancy complications or congenital anomalies in newborns were recorded in either group. CONCLUSIONS: Omalizumab for CSU treatment before and during pregnancy does not appear to have negative effects on maternal or fetal outcomes.

Is Adrenaline Always the First Choice Therapy of Anaphylaxis? An Allergist-cardiologist Interdisciplinary Point of View.

Worldwide, adrenaline is considered the first choice therapy in the international guidelines for the management of anaphylaxis. However, the heart and cardiovascular apparatus are strongly involved in anaphylaxis; for that reason, there are some cardiac conditions and certain anaphylaxis patterns that make epinephrine use problematic without adequate heart monitoring. The onset of Kounis syndrome, takotsubo cardiopathy, or the paradoxical anaphylaxis require great attention in the management of anaphylaxis and adrenaline administration by clinicians, who should be aware of the undervalued evolution of anaphylaxis and the potential cardiologic complications of epinephrine administration. Numerous case reports and studies describe the unexpected onset of cardiac diseases following epinephrine treatment, despite the latter being the recommended therapy for anaphylaxis. Our review suggests that future anaphylaxis guidelines should incorporate cardiovascular specialists since the treatment of Kounis syndrome or takotsubo cardiopathy requires cardiologist skills.

Latent Mastocytosis Triggered by COVID-19 Vaccination: A Case Report.

BACKGROUND: Hereby, we describe the first case of latent mastocytosis triggered by mRNA-based vaccine to prevent COVID-19 infection. CASE PRESENTATION: In a 42-year-old Arabian man affected by slight, undiagnosed mastocytosis, the second dose of the COVID-19 vaccine made more blatant his latent disease. The postvaccination diagnostic iter is illustrated and the potential reasons causing the onset of the cutaneous mastocytosis are discussed. CONCLUSION: In certain patients, clinicians should keep a longer follow-up of their patients, following the COVID-19 vaccination, not related to a few hours for the risk of immediate-type adverse events only.

Latex allergy - from discovery to component-resolved diagnosis.

Latex allergy is a hypersensitivity response to natural rubber latex (NRL) proteins or rubber chemicals used in the manufacture of latex products. An accurate diagnosis is the first step in the effective management of individuals with latex allergy, especially in high-risk groups, such as healthcare workers and those affected by spina bifida. Diagnosis is based on the clinical history and an accurate allergological evaluation. In the case of type I IgE-mediated hypersensitivity re-actions, which can manifest urticaria, angioedema, rhinoconjunctivitis, asthma and anaphylaxis after latex exposure, skin prick tests or latex-specific IgE (sIgE) antibody detection using sero-logical assays can be performed to confirm sensitization. Instead, in the case of contact dermati-tis, a patch test can be applied to confirm the presence of a type IV T cell-mediated hypersensi-tivity reaction to rubber accelerators or additives. Basophils activation tests or challenge tests may be performed if there's an incongruity between the clinical history and the results of in vivo and in vitro tests. The aim of this review is to analyze the current state of the art of diagnostic techniques for latex allergy and algorithms employed in clinical practice and possible future de-velopments in this field.

An update on nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug-induced urticaria.

BACKGROUND: Hypersensitivity reactions to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (HR-NSAIDs) are common adverse events related to the widespread use of over-the-counter NSAIDs for the treatment of a variety of inflammatory conditions. Urticaria is the most commonly reported immediate cutaneous clinical sign of HR-NSAIDs, but it can be a manifestation of pathophysiologically different clinical entities that require different therapeutic strategies. The aim of this study is to ease the identification of the correct phenotype of HR-NSAIDs in patients reporting urticaria associated with the intake of NSAIDs and provide updated information about their diagnosis and management. METHODS: The study is a narrative review conducted by collecting the most relevant and up-to-date data related to the classification, pathophysiology, severity, and prognosis of NSAID hypersensitivity reactions. PubMed and Embase scientific databases were used as search engines to select relevant articles. RESULTS: Patients developing HR-NSAIDs can be divided into two categories: selective responders (SR), who develop reactions after the administration of a single specific NSAID due to an underlying IgE or T-cell mediated hypersensitivity mechanism, or cross-intolerant (CI), who develop reactions to more than one chemically unrelated NSAIDs due to abnormalities in the biochemical pathways related with prostaglandin metabolism, independently from an underlying immunological mechanism. Five major different categories of HR-NSAIDs have been identified: NSAIDs-exacerbated cutaneous disease (NECD), NSAIDs-induced urticaria/angioedema with/without respiratory and systemic symptoms of anaphylaxis (NIUAA), and NSAIDs-exacerbated respiratory disease (NERD), which are developed by CI patients, and single NSAIDs-induced urticaria, angioedema and/ or anaphylaxis (SNIUAA) and single NSAIDs-induced delayed hypersensitivity reactions (SNIDHR), which are developed by CI patients. In vivo and in vitro diagnostic tests have rarely been shown to be reliable in all these entities and therefore are not routinely used in clinical practice. The management in SR patients consists of strict avoidance of the culprit drug, while for cross-intolerance reactions oral tolerance tests with safe alternative drugs (e.g. weak COX-1 inhibitors or selective COX-2 inhibitors) can be performed. CONCLUSION: HR-NSAIDs are being observed with increasing frequency, however, the pathogenesis behind some NSAIDS-associated clinical entities is still unclear. Diagnosis is mostly based on a thorough clinical history and confirmed by a drug challenge test. Clinical management is based on strict avoidance and use of alternative tolerated medications. Overall, all therapeutic decisions depend on the correct identification of the type of reaction the patient experienced.

Microbiota and IL-33/31 Axis Linkage: Implications and Therapeutic Perspectives in Atopic Dermatitis and Psoriasis.

Microbiome dysbiosis and cytokine alternations are key features of atopic dermatitis (AD) and psoriasis (PsO), two of the most prevalent and burdensome pruritic skin conditions worldwide. Interleukin (IL)-33 and IL-31 have been recognized to be major players who act synergistically in the pathogenesis and maintenance of different chronic inflammatory conditions and pruritic skin disorders, including AD and PsO, and their potential role as therapeutic targets is being thoroughly investigated. The bidirectional interplay between dysbiosis and immunological changes has been extensively studied, but there is still debate regarding which of these two factors is the actual causative culprit behind the aetiopathological process that ultimately leads to AD and PsO. We conducted a literature review on the Pubmed database assessing articles of immunology, dermatology, microbiology and allergology with the aim to strengthen the hypothesis that dysbiosis is at the origin of the IL-33/IL-31 dysregulation that contributes to the pathogenesis of AD and PsO. Finally, we discussed the therapeutic options currently in development for the treatment of these skin conditions targeting IL-31, IL-33 and/or the microbiome.

miRNAs' Cross-Involvement in Skin Allergies: A New Horizon for the Pathogenesis, Diagnosis and Therapy of Atopic Dermatitis, Allergic Contact Dermatitis and Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria.

Skin inflammation is a common underlying feature of atopic dermatitis, allergic contact dermatitis and chronic spontaneous urticaria. The pathogenetic mechanisms have not been fully elucidated. The purpose of this study was to examine whether miRNA, by regulating inflammatory mechanisms through the modulation of innate and adaptive immune responses, could play a major role in the pathogenesis of these skin conditions. We conducted a narrative review using the Pubmed and Embase scientific databases and search engines to find the most relevant miRNAs related to the pathophysiology, severity and prognosis of skin conditions. The studies show that miRNAs are involved in the pathogenesis and regulation of atopic dermatitis and can reveal an atopic predisposition or indicate disease severity. In chronic spontaneous urticaria, different miRNAs which are over-expressed during urticaria exacerbations not only play a role in the possible response to therapy or remission, but also serve as a marker of chronic autoimmune urticaria and indicate associations with other autoimmune diseases. In allergic contact dermatitis, miRNAs are upregulated in inflammatory lesions and expressed during the sensitization phase of allergic response. Several miRNAs have been identified as potential biomarkers of these chronic skin conditions, but they are also possible therapeutic targets.

Systemic drug-related intertriginous and flexural exanthema-like eruption after Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine.

Systemic drug-related intertriginous and flexural exanthema (SDRIFE) is an adverse drug reaction which manifests as a symmetrical erythematous rash involving the skin folds after systemic drug exposure. A vast array of possible side effects associated with administration of different anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccines have been reported in literature since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, but only few times SDRIFE-like eruptions have been described in this context. We discuss here a case of SDRIFE-like eruption following the second dose of Oxford-Astrazeneca Vaxzevria vaccine.

Novel approach to idursulfase and laronidase desensitization in type 2 and type 1 S mucopolysaccharidosis (MPS).

BACKGROUND: Idursulfase and laronidase are drugs used to treat Hunter syndrome (mucopolysaccharidosis type 2) and Scheie syndrome (mucopolysaccharidosis type 1 S), respectively. These are rare lysosomal storage disorders, leading to accumulation of glycosaminoglycans within lysosomes. Failure of early recognition of the disease and/or delay in starting the appropriate treatment result in severe clinical impairment and death. For almost 20 years, enzyme replacement therapy with recombinant proteins has represented the first line therapeutic option. However, administration of idursulfase and laronidase is associated with infusion-related hypersensitivity reactions, in approx. 20% of patients. In these patients, rapid desensitization by intravenous administration protocols has been used in order to avoid treatment discontinuation. This approach proved effective and safe. However, long-term tolerance could not be achieved. Thus, we decided to combine rapid desensitization with allergen immunotherapy-like desensitization. RESULTS: Two patients with Hunter syndrome and one patient with Scheie syndrome developed severe allergy to idursulfase and laronidase, respectively, preventing them from continuing the otherwise indispensable therapy. In all three patients, the possible IgE-mediated nature of the reactions suffered was suggested by positive skin tests with the two enzymes, respectively. By devising 12-step, 3-dilution rapid desensitization protocols, we resumed the enzyme replacement therapy. However, the prolonged time required for administration (a not negligible pitfall, since therapy should be given weekly for life) and the persistent occurrence of reactions (mild but still requiring anti-allergic medication at full dosage) led us to combine rapid desensitization with a compact 11-step, 24-day allergen immunotherapy-like desensitization protocol. Thus, idursulfase and laronidase were injected subcutaneously, with a 500-fold increase from step 1 to step 11 for idursulfase and a 222-fold increase for laronidase. This strategy led to restoration of long-term tolerance, allowing weekly intravenous therapy administration under standard conditions, according to the manufacturer instructions, in the absence of side effects and with only precautionary low-dose premedication. CONCLUSION: Rapid desensitization is a suitable and safe option in the case of idursulfase and laronidase allergy. Combination with subcutaneous allergen immunotherapy-like desensitization afforded restoration of enzyme replacement therapy given by the normal administration schedule, by inducing sustained tolerance.

Allergic contact dermatitis from vitamins: A systematic review.

Background and Aims: Vitamins are bioactive compounds naturally found in many different types of food and required by the human body for many biological functions and enzymatic activities. Due to their antioxidant properties, certain vitamin derivatives have been synthesized for inclusion in many cosmetics, thus leading to an increasing incidence of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) cases. Therefore, the present review may be helpful to provide an insight into the sensitizing role of at least certain vitamins and may also offer possible patch test alternatives for definitive diagnosis. Methods: This study was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Literature search regarding ACD cases to vitamins was performed using the Medline, PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, and Google Scholar databases from January 1940 up to June 2021. Results: A total of 4494 articles matched the keywords used for the researched. Records removed before screening included 15 duplicate articles and 3429 not eligible articles (e.g., not written in English, studies on animals, not relevant to the topic). A total of 1050 articles underwent the screening phase and 258 were therefore excluded as they were not primary studies. Subsequentially, 792 articles were considered eligible for the review and 688 of them were finally excluded as they did not report the outcome of interest. Therefore, 104 articles were definitely included in the present review. Conclusion: ACD to vitamins is still probably an underestimated issue in cosmetology, as many vitamins are considered "natural" and therefore "safe" ingredients. On the contrary, according to current literature, almost all vitamins contained in topical products are able to induce allergic reactions, with the exception of vitamin B2 and vitamin B9. Patch tests are not standardized, thus leading to difficulties in diagnosis.

Secondary prevention of latex allergy.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The present review addresses the secondary prevention in healthcare worker, healthcare setting, and in patients outside the healthcare setting. RECENT FINDINGS: There is sufficient knowledge of the broad aetiology of latex allergy for secondary preventive programmes to be widely adopted. Currently, avoidance of latex-containing surgical products is mandatory in the care of sensitized patients. They should also have a list of occult sources of natural rubber latex exposure and cross-reacting fruits. During all health-care procedures latex allergic patients should be treated in a 'latex-free' environment. Specific sublingual immunotherapy has been suggested as a suitable therapeutic option. It can be offered, in addition to symptomatic treatment, to selected patients, when avoidance measures are not feasible or effective. The use of omalizumab could also be extended as an adjunct to latex immunotherapy. SUMMARY: Despite of the progress made in the secondary prevention of latex allergy, the disease still continues to be a global health problem.