Children with psoriasis and COVID-19: factors associated with an unfavourable COVID-19 course, and the impact of infection on disease progression (Chi-PsoCov registry).

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has raised questions regarding the management of chronic skin diseases, especially in patients on systemic treatments. Data concerning the use of biologics in adults with psoriasis are reassuring, but data specific to children are missing. Moreover, COVID-19 could impact the course of psoriasis in children. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was therefore to assess the impact of COVID-19 on the psoriasis of children, and the severity of the infection in relation to systemic treatments. METHODS: We set up an international registry of paediatric psoriasis patients. Children were included if they were under 18 years of age, had a history of psoriasis, or developed it within 1 month of COVID-19 and had COVID-19 with or without symptoms. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty episodes of COVID-19 in 117 children (mean age: 12.4 years) were reported. The main clinical form of psoriasis was plaque type (69.4%). Most children were without systemic treatment (54.2%); 33 (28.3%) were on biologic therapies, and 24 (20%) on non-biologic systemic drugs. COVID-19 was confirmed in 106 children (88.3%) and 3 children had two COVID-19 infections each. COVID-19 was symptomatic for 75 children (62.5%) with a mean duration of 6.5 days, significantly longer for children on non-biologic systemic treatments (P = 0.02) and without systemic treatment (P = 0.006) when compared with children on biologics. The six children who required hospitalization were more frequently under non-biologic systemic treatment when compared with the other children (P = 0.01), and particularly under methotrexate (P = 0.03). After COVID-19, the psoriasis worsened in 17 cases (15.2%). Nine children (8%) developed a psoriasis in the month following COVID-19, mainly a guttate form (P = 0.01). DISCUSSION: Biologics appear to be safe with no increased risk of severe form of COVID-19 in children with psoriasis. COVID-19 was responsible for the development of psoriasis or the worsening of a known psoriasis for some children.

SYMPTOMATOLOGY AND TREATMENT OF COVID-19 AFFECTING SKIN APPENDAGES: A NARRATIVE REVIEW BEYOND COVID-TOES.

SARS-CoV-2 is the cause of COVID-19 disease and responsible for a pandemic since the 2020. Multiple organ involvement has been described including cutaneous symptoms. Affection of skin appendages, however, seems to be under-reported except for COVID-toes. We performed a PUBMED research for "COVID-19" OR "SARS-CoV-2" AND "skin appendages", "hair", "nails", and "skin glands" from January 2020 to April 2022. COVID toes were excluded since this symptom had extensively been discussed. The focus of this narrative review was laid on clinical presentation, association to the course of COVID-19 disease and treatment options. Skin appendages can be affected by COVID-19 disease beyond COVID-toes, both by symptomatic and asymptomatic course. Telogen effluvium, androgenetic alopecia, and alopecia areata are the most common hair disorders in COVID-19 patients. Nails are less commonly affected by COVID-19 than hair. Splinter hemorrhages and leukonychia are the most frequent findings. While sebaceous glands seem to be uninvolved, SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins have been identified in eccrine sweat glands. Alopecia areata is often seen among asymptomatic COVID-19 patients while telogen effluvium is observed in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. The half-moon sign on the nails could be a red flag for a more severe course of COVID-19. Treatment options are summarized. Skin appendages are not spared by COVID-19. Their knowledge will help to identify asymptomatic patients and patients at risk for a more severe course of the viral disease.

Skin manifestations of COVID-19 in children: Part 1.

The current COVID-19 pandemic is caused by the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus. The initial recognized symptoms were respiratory, sometimes culminating in severe respiratory distress requiring ventilation, and causing death in a percentage of those infected. As time has passed, other symptoms have been recognized. The initial reports of cutaneous manifestations were from Italian dermatologists, probably because Italy was the first European country to be heavily affected by the pandemic. The overall clinical presentation, course and outcome of SARS-CoV-2 infection in children differ from those in adults as do the cutaneous manifestations of childhood. In this review, we summarize the current knowledge on the cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19 in children after thorough and critical review of articles published in the literature and from the personal experience of a large panel of paediatric dermatologists in Europe. In Part 1, we discuss one of the first and most widespread cutaneous manifestation of COVID-19, chilblain-like lesions. In Part 2, we review other manifestations, including erythema multiforme, urticaria and Kawasaki disease-like inflammatory multisystemic syndrome, while in Part 3, we discuss the histological findings of COVID-19 manifestations, and the testing and management of infected children, for both COVID-19 and any other pre-existing conditions.

Skin manifestations of COVID-19 in children: Part 2.

The current COVID-19 pandemic is caused by the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus. The initial recognized symptoms were respiratory, sometimes culminating in severe respiratory distress requiring ventilation, and causing death in a percentage of those infected. As time has passed, other symptoms have been recognized. The initial reports of cutaneous manifestations were from Italian dermatologists, probably because Italy was the first European country to be heavily affected by the pandemic. The overall clinical presentation, course and outcome of SARS-CoV-2 infection in children differ from those in adults, as do the cutaneous manifestations of childhood. In this review, we summarize the current knowledge on the cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19 in children after thorough and critical review of articles published in the literature and from the personal experience of a large panel of paediatric dermatologists in Europe. In Part 1, we discussed one of the first and most widespread cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19, chilblain-like lesions. In this part of the review, we describe other manifestations, including erythema multiforme, urticaria and Kawasaki disease-like inflammatory multisystemic syndrome. In Part 3, we discuss the histological findings of COVID-19 manifestations, and the testing and management of infected children for both COVID-19 and any other pre-existing conditions.

Skin manifestations of COVID-19 in children: Part 3.

The current COVID-19 pandemic is caused by the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus. The initial recognized symptoms were respiratory, sometimes culminating in severe respiratory distress requiring ventilation, and causing death in a percentage of those infected. As time has passed, other symptoms have been recognized. The initial reports of cutaneous manifestations were from Italian dermatologists, probably because Italy was the first European country to be heavily affected by the pandemic. The overall clinical presentation, course and outcome of SARS-CoV-2 infection in children differ from those in adults as do the cutaneous manifestations of childhood. In this review, we summarize the current knowledge on the cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19 in children after thorough and critical review of articles published in the literature and from the personal experience of a large panel of paediatric dermatologists in Europe. In Part 1, we discuss one of the first and most widespread cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19, chilblain-like lesions, and in Part 2 we expanded to other manifestations, including erythema multiforme, urticaria and Kawasaki disease-like inflammatory multisystemic syndrome. In this part of the review, we discuss the histological findings of COVID-19 manifestations, and the testing and management of infected children for both COVID-19 and any other pre-existing conditions.

[Kerion Celsi due to Microsporum canis infection]. / Kerion Celsi durch Microsporum canis.

Tinea capitis is seen world-wide among children up to 12 years. The most severe type is Kerion Celsi with painful abscesses and lymphadenopathy. We report on an 11-year-old boy with Kerion Celsi, who was initially treated using antibiotics under the common misdiagnosis of a bacterial infection. Mycological investigations could identify Microsporum canis. The patient was treated orally with griseofulvin, which resulted in complete mycological remission after 8 weeks. Cicatrical alopecia, however, could not be prevented. Purulent infections of the scalp should lead to early mycological diagnostics in children.

Optimal step doses for drug provocation tests to prove beta-lactam hypersensitivity.

BACKGROUND: Drug provocation tests (DPT) are commonly performed as part of ß-lactam (BL) allergy workup, in case of negative skin tests (ST) and in the absence of contraindications. The recommendations of learned societies have created a frame for DPT performance, but protocols vary widely between centres, generating various hypothesis-driven protocols (i.e. empirical dosing, driven by both safety concerns and practical aspects). METHODS: The primary objective of this retrospective analysis was to detect eliciting dose thresholds (reactive doses) during BL DPT, using the survival analysis method, in order to suggest optimal step doses. Our secondary objective was to evaluate the safety of our 30-min incremental 1-day protocol. The study included all the patients explored in the Allergy Unit of the University Hospital of Montpellier (France), between September 1996 and July 2015 for a suspicion of drug hypersensitivity reaction to BLs, with negative ST and positive DPT. RESULTS: During the study period, 182 positive DPT (accounting for 171 hypersensitive patients) were analysed. We identified eliciting thresholds, and we suggest the following steps for DPT to BLs: 5-15-30-50% of daily therapeutic dose (with additional lower steps for index reactions of anaphylaxis). We confirm the safety of 1-day protocol for immediate and mild nonimmediate reactors, for both children and adults, with a surveillance period of 2 h after the last administered dose, and a prolonged surveillance after discharge of 48 h. CONCLUSION: This data-driven approach in designing DPT protocols is a step forward in improving DPT standardization, starting with the most frequently tested drugs, BL antibiotics.

Allergic Rhinitis Control Test questionnaire-driven stepwise strategy to improve allergic rhinitis control: a prospective study.

BACKGROUND: Allergic Rhinitis Control Test (ARCT) has been validated for assessing allergic rhinitis (AR) control and identifying severe AR. The aim of the study was to assess the ARCT questionnaire as a tool for stepwise pharmacotherapy. METHODS: A standard pharmacotherapy regimen from Step 1 (oral second-generation H1 antihistamine as needed) to Step 5 (oral corticosteroid) was carried out prospectively in a Chinese AR population. The AR patients were initiated with Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) appropriate step treatment and assessed with ARCT every 15 days. If ARCT score was equal or above 20 (controlled AR) and maintained for 15 days, the patient would finish the study; if ARCT score was strictly <20 (uncontrolled AR), the patient would receive higher step treatment according to a predefined open design up to Step 5. The different AR control subgroups were compared. RESULTS: A total of 255 patients were enrolled in the study; 5 patients dropped out and 2 (0.8%) were controlled at day 0, 85 (34.0%) at day 15, 177 (70.8%) at day 30, 222 (88.8%) at day 45, 241 (96.4%) at day 60 and 242 (96.8%) at day 75. Only 8 (3.2%) patients remained uncontrolled at the endpoint of the study. Patients with ARIA moderate/severe or persistent symptoms, moderate/severe impaired quality of life, asthma history, rhinorrhea and cough symptoms always needed up to Step 4 (nasal corticosteroid plus antihistamine) and prolonged treatments to achieve disease control. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of AR can be controlled with standard stepwise treatment. ARCT offers an objective criterion for the stepwise pharmacotherapy of AR.

Drug allergy passport and other documentation for patients with drug hypersensitivity - An ENDA/EAACI Drug Allergy Interest Group Position Paper.

The strongest and best-documented risk factor for drug hypersensitivity (DH) is the history of a previous reaction. Accidental exposures to drugs may lead to severe or even fatal reactions in sensitized patients. Preventable prescription errors are common. They are often due to inadequate medical history or poor risk assessment of recurrence of drug reaction. Proper documentation is essential information for the doctor to make sound therapeutic decision. The European Network on Drug Allergy and Drug Allergy Interest Group of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology have formed a task force and developed a drug allergy passport as well as general guidelines of drug allergy documentation. A drug allergy passport, a drug allergy alert card, a certificate, and a discharge letter after medical evaluation are adequate means to document DH in a patient. They are to be handed to the patient who is advised to carry the documentation at all times especially when away from home. A drug allergy passport should at least contain information on the culprit drug(s) including international nonproprietary name, clinical manifestations including severity, diagnostic measures, potential cross-reactivity, alternative drugs to prescribe, and where more detailed information can be obtained from the issuer. It should be given to patients only after full allergy workup. In the future, electronic prescription systems with alert functions will become more common and should include the same information as in paper-based documentation.

International Consensus on drug allergy.

When drug reactions resembling allergy occur, they are called drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) before showing the evidence of either drug-specific antibodies or T cells. DHRs may be allergic or nonallergic in nature, with drug allergies being immunologically mediated DHRs. These reactions are typically unpredictable. They can be life-threatening, may require or prolong hospitalization, and may necessitate changes in subsequent therapy. Both underdiagnosis (due to under-reporting) and overdiagnosis (due to an overuse of the term 'allergy') are common. A definitive diagnosis of such reactions is required in order to institute adequate treatment options and proper preventive measures. Misclassification based solely on the DHR history without further testing may affect treatment options, result in adverse consequences, and lead to the use of more-expensive or less-effective drugs, in contrast to patients who had undergone a complete drug allergy workup. Several guidelines and/or consensus documents on general or specific drug class-induced DHRs are available to support the medical decision process. The use of standardized systematic approaches for the diagnosis and management of DHRs carries the potential to improve outcomes and should thus be disseminated and implemented. Consequently, the International Collaboration in Asthma, Allergy and Immunology (iCAALL), formed by the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI), the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (AAAAI), the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (ACAAI), and the World Allergy Organization (WAO), has decided to issue an International CONsensus (ICON) on drug allergy. The purpose of this document is to highlight the key messages that are common to many of the existing guidelines, while critically reviewing and commenting on any differences and deficiencies of evidence, thus providing a comprehensive reference document for the diagnosis and management of DHRs.

Skin test concentrations for systemically administered drugs -- an ENDA/EAACI Drug Allergy Interest Group position paper.

Skin tests are of paramount importance for the evaluation of drug hypersensitivity reactions. Drug skin tests are often not carried out because of lack of concise information on specific test concentrations. The diagnosis of drug allergy is often based on history alone, which is an unreliable indicator of true hypersensitivity.To promote and standardize reproducible skin testing with safe and nonirritant drug concentrations in the clinical practice, the European Network and European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) Interest Group on Drug Allergy has performed a literature search on skin test drug concentration in MEDLINE and EMBASE, reviewed and evaluated the literature in five languages using the GRADE system for quality of evidence and strength of recommendation. Where the literature is poor, we have taken into consideration the collective experience of the group.We recommend drug concentration for skin testing aiming to achieve a specificity of at least 95%. It has been possible to recommend specific drug concentration for betalactam antibiotics, perioperative drugs, heparins, platinum salts and radiocontrast media. For many other drugs, there is insufficient evidence to recommend appropriate drug concentration. There is urgent need for multicentre studies designed to establish and validate drug skin test concentration using standard protocols. For most drugs, sensitivity of skin testing is higher in immediate hypersensitivity compared to nonimmediate hypersensitivity.

Performances of an improved device for skin prick tests.

Every day allergists deal with skin prick testing. Following a recent paper showing that the intravenous needle and the metal lancets are superior to the Stallerpoint® plastic lancet, the manufacturer has improved the device to reach better standards in terms of sensitivity, intra-patient reproducibility and inter-patient reproducibility, as demonstrated on 10 adult patients, comparing the results with skin tests performed with the intravenous needle. We evaluated the sensitivity of the device by calculating the ratio between the number of true-positive tests and the sum of true-positive and false-negative tests. To assess the reproducibility of the test, we calculated the interpatient and the intrapatient coefficient of variation between the mean diameters of the papules induced by the different techniques. The improved device shows performances similar to those obtained with the intravenous needle.

Negative predictive value of skin tests to neuromuscular blocking agents.

Allergy to neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) is the most important caue of perioperative anaphylaxis in France. The diagnosis relies on a careful clinical history, the search of serum IgE antibodies, and the realization of skin tests. Although the skin tests are the most important tool and their sensitivity is widely recognized, the lack of information about their negative predictive value represents an important issue in the management of patients who require a new procedure with NMBA injection. We present a series of 49 patients with confirmed allergy to NMBAs, six of whom required a subsequent surgery with neuromuscular blockade. Negative skin tests allowed the selection of an alternative NMBA, which was well tolerated in all 6 cases. We found an excellent negative predictive value of skin tests in our series but larger studies are required to properly address this question.

Practical guide to skin prick tests in allergy to aeroallergens.

This pocket guide is the result of a consensus reached between members of the Global Allergy and Asthma European Network (GA(2) LEN) and Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA). The aim of the current pocket guide is to offer a comprehensive set of recommendations on the use of skin prick tests in allergic rhinitis-conjunctivitis and asthma in daily practice. This pocket guide is meant to give simple answers to the most frequent questions raised by practitioners in Europe, including 'practicing allergists', general practitioners and any other physicians with special interest in the management of allergic diseases. It is not a long or detailed scientific review of the topic. However, the recommendations in this pocket guide were compiled following an in-depth review of existing guidelines and publications, including the 1993 European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology position paper, the 2001 ARIA document and the ARIA update 2008 (prepared in collaboration with GA(2) LEN). The recommendations cover skin test methodology and interpretation, allergen extracts to be used, as well as indications in a variety of settings including paediatrics and developing countries.