S3 Guideline Atopic dermatitis: Part 1 - General aspects, topical and non-drug therapies, special patient groups.

This S3 guideline was created based on the European S3 guideline, with special consideration of the medical conditions in the German-speaking region and incorporating additions from the previous German-language version. The interdisciplinary guideline commission consisted of representatives from the German Dermatological Society, the Professional Association of German Dermatologists, the Austrian Society of Dermatology and Venereology, the Swiss Society of Dermatology and Venereology, the German Society for Allergology and Clinical Immunology, the German Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, the Professional Association of Pediatricians and Adolescent Medicine, the Society for Pediatric Allergology and Environmental Medicine, the German Society for Pediatric Rehabilitation and Prevention, the German Society for Psychosomatic Medicine and Medical Psychotherapy, the German Network for Health Services Research, the German Eczema Association and the German Allergy and Asthma Association. This first part of the guideline focuses on the definition and diagnostic aspects of atopic dermatitis (AD), addressing topical therapy as well as non-pharmacological treatment approaches such as UV therapy, psychoeducational therapy, dietary interventions for AD, allergen immunotherapy for AD, and complementary medicine. This part of the guideline also covers specific aspects of AD in children and adolescents, during pregnancy and lactation, and in the context of family planning. Additionally, it addresses occupational aspects of AD and highlights the perspective of the patients. The second part of the guideline, published separately, addresses the systemic therapy of AD.

Diagnosis and treatment of Hymenoptera venom allergy: S2k Guideline of the German Society of Allergology and Clinical Immunology (DGAKI) in collaboration with the Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Berufs- und Umweltdermatologie e.V. (ABD), the Medical Association of German Allergologists (AeDA), the German Society of Dermatology (DDG), the German Society of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, Head and Neck Surgery (DGHNOKC), the German Society of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine (DGKJ), the Society for Pediatric Allergy and Environmental Medicine (GPA), German Respiratory Society (DGP), and the Austrian Society for Allergy and Immunology (ÖGAI).

Hymenoptera venom (HV) is injected into the skin during a sting by Hymenoptera such as bees or wasps. Some components of HV are potential allergens and can cause large local and/or systemic allergic reactions (SAR) in sensitized individuals. During their lifetime, ~ 3% of the general population will develop SAR following a Hymenoptera sting. This guideline presents the diagnostic and therapeutic approach to SAR following Hymenoptera stings. Symptomatic therapy is usually required after a severe local reaction, but specific diagnosis or allergen immunotherapy (AIT) with HV (VIT) is not necessary. When taking a patient's medical history after SAR, clinicians should discuss possible risk factors for more frequent stings and more severe anaphylactic reactions. The most important risk factors for more severe SAR are mast cell disease and, especially in children, uncontrolled asthma. Therefore, if the SAR extends beyond the skin (according to the Ring and Messmer classification: grade > I), the baseline serum tryptase concentration shall be measured and the skin shall be examined for possible mastocytosis. The medical history should also include questions specific to asthma symptoms. To demonstrate sensitization to HV, allergists shall determine concentrations of specific IgE antibodies (sIgE) to bee and/or vespid venoms, their constituents and other venoms as appropriate. If the results are negative less than 2 weeks after the sting, the tests shall be repeated (at least 4 - 6 weeks after the sting). If only sIgE to the total venom extracts have been determined, if there is double sensitization, or if the results are implausible, allergists shall determine sIgE to the different venom components. Skin testing may be omitted if in-vitro methods have provided a definitive diagnosis. If neither laboratory diagnosis nor skin testing has led to conclusive results, additional cellular testing can be performed. Therapy for HV allergy includes prophylaxis of reexposure, patient self treatment measures (including use of rescue medication) in the event of re-stings, and VIT. Following a grade I SAR and in the absence of other risk factors for repeated sting exposure or more severe anaphylaxis, it is not necessary to prescribe an adrenaline auto-injector (AAI) or to administer VIT. Under certain conditions, VIT can be administered even in the presence of previous grade I anaphylaxis, e.g., if there are additional risk factors or if quality of life would be reduced without VIT. Physicians should be aware of the contraindications to VIT, although they can be overridden in justified individual cases after weighing benefits and risks. The use of ß-blockers and ACE inhibitors is not a contraindication to VIT. Patients should be informed about possible interactions. For VIT, the venom extract shall be used that, according to the patient's history and the results of the allergy diagnostics, was the trigger of the disease. If, in the case of double sensitization and an unclear history regarding the trigger, it is not possible to determine the culprit venom even with additional diagnostic procedures, VIT shall be performed with both venom extracts. The standard maintenance dose of VIT is 100 µg HV. In adult patients with bee venom allergy and an increased risk of sting exposure or particularly severe anaphylaxis, a maintenance dose of 200 µg can be considered from the start of VIT. Administration of a non-sedating H1-blocking antihistamine can be considered to reduce side effects. The maintenance dose should be given at 4-weekly intervals during the first year and, following the manufacturer's instructions, every 5 - 6 weeks from the second year, depending on the preparation used; if a depot preparation is used, the interval can be extended to 8 weeks from the third year onwards. If significant recurrent systemic reactions occur during VIT, clinicians shall identify and as possible eliminate co-factors that promote these reactions. If this is not possible or if there are no such co-factors, if prophylactic administration of an H1-blocking antihistamine is not effective, and if a higher dose of VIT has not led to tolerability of VIT, physicians should should consider additional treatment with an anti IgE antibody such as omalizumab as off lable use. For practical reasons, only a small number of patients are able to undergo sting challenge tests to check the success of the therapy, which requires in-hospital monitoring and emergency standby. To perform such a provocation test, patients must have tolerated VIT at the planned maintenance dose. In the event of treatment failure while on treatment with an ACE inhibitor, physicians should consider discontinuing the ACE inhibitor. In the absence of tolerance induction, physicians shall increase the maintenance dose (200 µg to a maximum of 400 µg in adults, maximum of 200 µg HV in children). If increasing the maintenance dose does not provide adequate protection and there are risk factors for a severe anaphylactic reaction, physicians should consider a co-medication based on an anti-IgE antibody (omalizumab; off-label use) during the insect flight season. In patients without specific risk factors, VIT can be discontinued after 3 - 5 years if maintenance therapy has been tolerated without recurrent anaphylactic events. Prolonged or permanent VIT can be considered in patients with mastocytosis, a history of cardiovascular or respiratory arrest due to Hymenoptera sting (severity grade IV), or other specific constellations associated with an increased individual risk of recurrent and/or severe SAR (e.g., hereditary α-tryptasemia). In cases of strongly increased, unavoidable insect exposure, adults may receive VIT until the end of intense contact. The prescription of an AAI can be omitted in patients with a history of SAR grade I and II when the maintenance dose of VIT has been reached and tolerated, provided that there are no additional risk factors. The same holds true once the VIT has been terminated after the regular treatment period. Patients with a history of SAR grade ≥ III reaction, or grade II reaction combined with additional factors that increase the risk of non response or repeated severe sting reactions, should carry an emergency kit, including an AAI, during VIT and after regular termination of the VIT.

Contact sensitizations in massage therapists with occupational contact dermatitis: Patch test data of the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology, 2008-2020.

BACKGROUND: Massage therapists are particularly exposed to constituents of massage preparations, wet work and mechanical strain and therefore, at high risk to develop occupational dermatitis (OD). OBJECTIVES: To describe the sensitization spectrum of massage therapists with OD. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a retrospective study, patch test data of patients with OD (128 massage therapists and 24 374 patients working in other professions) collected by the Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK, 2008-2020) were analysed. RESULTS: Hand dermatitis (91.4%) and allergic contact dermatitis (34.4%) were common in massage therapists with OD. Most frequent were sensitizations to fragrances/essential oils which were found in 54 (42.2%) massage therapists and thus, more often than in other patients with OD. Concomitant positivity to several fragrances/essential oils was frequent. In 8 (14.8%) of the 54 massage therapists, sensitizations to fragrances/essential oils were not detected with the baseline series, but only with special fragrance series. CONCLUSIONS: Allergic contact dermatitis is common in massage therapists with OD and is mainly caused by fragrances and essential oils. Hence, massage therapists should be aware of this risk. When OD is suspected, not only the baseline series, but also special fragrance series should be patch tested in this occupational group.

Dupilumab Treatment of Atopic Dermatitis in Routine Clinical Care: Baseline Characteristics of Patients in the PROLEAD Prospective, Observational Study.

INTRODUCTION: Dupilumab is the first biologic licensed to treat patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) who require systemic therapy. PROLEAD was designed to document the real-world effectiveness and safety of dupilumab in patients with moderate-to-severe AD. The present study aims to describe the baseline characteristics of patients treated with dupilumab in Germany. METHODS: PROLEAD is a national, multicentre, prospective, non-interventional study, with a 2-year observation period. Adults with moderate-to-severe AD treated with dupilumab were included. Baseline characteristics, physician assessments, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were collected. RESULTS: The study involved 126 sites throughout Germany. Of 839 patients assessed for eligibility, 828 were included, with baseline data available for 817 patients. Mean (standard deviation, SD) age of patients was 43.4 (15.8) years, with 396 (48.5%) patients being female. Overall, 66.6% of patients received their first diagnosis of AD during childhood. In total, 423 (51.8%) patients had co-existing atopic and type 2 inflammatory diseases, including allergic conjunctivitis (36.8%) and bronchial asthma (22.5%). Overall, 61.4% of patients had received systemic therapy, most commonly oral corticosteroids (49.9%). Approximately half of patients (51.3%) had received UV/phototherapy prior to baseline. Treatment with moderate-potent (Class 2) or potent (Class 3) topical corticosteroids was the most common concomitant treatment at baseline. However, 50.4% of patients had not received concomitant AD treatment with dupilumab at baseline. The most reported reason for initiating dupilumab was "Topical therapy alone was not sufficient" (95.1%). Mean (SD) physician assessments: EASI: 22.9 (14.5); SCORAD: 63.3 (16.2); IGA: 3.3 (0.7). Mean (SD) PROs: DLQI: 13.9 (7.1); peak pruritus NRS: 7.4 (2.3). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with moderate-to-severe AD present a long medical history, impaired quality of life, and high prevalence of co-existing type 2 inflammatory diseases. Dupilumab was used as a first-line systemic treatment in 38.6% of patients.

What's New in the Treatment of Urticaria and Angioedema.

Chronic urticaria and angioedema are diseases often managed by Allergy and Immunology specialists. Recent international guidelines have outlined a stepwise approach to management of patients using dose escalation of second-generation antihistamines followed by use of omalizumab and finally cyclosporine in more refractory cases. In select patients (those with refractory chronic urticaria), nonbiologic alternative medications with anti-inflammatory or immunosuppressant activity may be considered. Angioedema without wheals may have several different pathophysiologic mechanisms. Optimal management of mast cell-mediated angioedema is less clear but is often managed similar to chronic spontaneous urticaria. Drug-induced angioedema due to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors is a common cause of angioedema in the emergency department. Although bradykinin is thought to be a primary mediator for this type of angioedema, studies of targeted therapies have been generally disappointing. In contrast, several targeted therapies have been proven successful using acute and preventive approaches for management of hereditary angioedema. Further developments, including novel biologics, novel oral therapies, and gene therapy approaches, may hopefully continue to broaden therapeutic options to ensure optimal individual management of patients with hereditary angioedema.

Severe allergic reactions after COVID-19 vaccination with the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine in Great Britain and USA: Position statement of the German Allergy Societies: Medical Association of German Allergologists (AeDA), German Society for Allergology and Clinical Immunology (DGAKI) and Society for Pediatric Allergology and Environmental Medicine (GPA).

Two employees of the National Health Service (NHS) in England developed severe allergic reactions following administration of BNT162b2 vaccine against COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019). The British SmPC for the BNT162b2 vaccine already includes reference to a contraindication for use in individuals who have had an allergic reaction to the vaccine or any of its components. As a precautionary measure, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has issued interim guidance to the NHS not to vaccinate in principle in "patients with severe allergies". Allergic reactions to vaccines are very rare, but vaccine components are known to cause allergic reactions. BNT162b2 is a vaccine based on an mRNA embedded in lipid nanoparticles and blended with other substances to enable its transport into the cells. In the pivotal phase III clinical trial, the BNT162b2 vaccine was generally well tolerated, but this large clinical trial, used to support vaccine approval by the MHRA and US Food and Drug Administration, excluded individuals with a "history of a severe adverse reaction related to the vaccine and/or a severe allergic reaction (e.g., anaphylaxis) to a component of the study medication". Vaccines are recognized as one of the most effective public health interventions. This repeated administration of a foreign protein (antigen) necessitates a careful allergological history before each application and diagnostic clarification and a risk-benefit assessment before each injection. Severe allergic reactions to vaccines are rare but can be life-threatening, and it is prudent to raise awareness of this hazard among vaccination teams and to take adequate precautions while more experience is gained with this new vaccine.

Contact sensitization to plants of the Compositae family: Data of the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK) from 2007 to 2016.

BACKGROUND: The Compositae plant family includes many thousands of species, making it one of the most widespread group of plants worldwide. Sensitization to Compositae allergens may occur in private or in occupational settings. OBJECTIVES: To monitor the current spectrum of sensitization to Compositae allergens, especially in cooks and florists. METHODS: We retrospectively analysed patch test results obtained with two Compositae mixes (CMs) (CM I and CM II; switch in October 2011), their individual components, and sesquiterpene lactone (SL) mix in 1492 cooks, 851 florists, and a control group (118 358 other patients) registered in the IVDK, 2007 to 2016. RESULTS: Florists reacted significantly more frequently to CM I and II (CM I, 8.7%; CM II, 10.6%) than did cooks (CM I, 2.1%; CM II, 0.8%) and controls (CM I, 1.3%; CM II, 1.2%). Additional testing with SL mix detected 14.3% more sensitizations than CM I or CM II alone. CONCLUSIONS: Florists are at considerable risk of sensitization to Compositae allergens. Patch testing with both CM and SL mix is recommended.

Chronic hand eczema in Germany: 5-year follow-up data from the CARPE registry.

BACKGROUND: The CARPE registry was set up in 2009 to prospectively investigate the management of patients with chronic hand eczema (CHE). OBJECTIVES: To report comprehensive follow-up data from the CARPE registry. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We investigated sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, provision of medical care, physician-assessed outcomes, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Data were collected between 2009 and 2016, with up to 5 years of follow-up, and are reported descriptively. RESULTS: Overall, 1281 patients were included in the registry (53.7% female). Mean age was 47.0 years. Of the patients, 793 and 231 completed the 2-year follow-up and 5-year follow-up, respectively. At baseline, 5.4% had changed or given up their job because of CHE, the average duration of CHE was 6.1 years, and, in 22.4%, the CHE was severe according to physician global assessment. Systemic treatment (alitretinoin, acitretin, and methotrexate) was prescribed at least once to 39.0% of the patients during the course of the follow-up. Disease severity, quality of life and treatment satisfaction improved over time, and the proportion of patients receiving systemic treatments decreased. CONCLUSIONS: Under continued dermatological care, substantial improvements in disease severity and PROs over time was achieved during the course of the CARPE registry, even in patients with long-standing and severe hand eczema.

Characteristics and provision of care in patients with chronic hand eczema: updated data from the CARPE registry.

The aim of the CARPE registry is to investigate characteristics and medical care in patients affected by chronic hand eczema. Patients are assessed by dermatological examination and patient questionnaire. Socio-economic and clinical data are collected, and quality of life is measured using the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI). A total of 1,163 patients with chronic hand eczema were eligible for analysis (mean age 47.0 years; 54.6% female; mean disease duration 7.6 years). At inclusion, chronic hand eczema was very severe in 23.4%, severe in 47.0%, moderate in 20.1%, and clear or almost clear in 9.6% of patients. Median DLQI was 8.0. In all, 93.8% of patients reported use of topical corticosteroids, 25.6% systemic antihistamines, 28.3% topical calcineurin-inhibitors, 38.0% ultraviolet phototherapy, and 35.3% systemic treatment (19.7% alitretinoin) prior to inclusion in the registry. A significant proportion of patients may not receive adequate treatment according to the guideline on management of hand eczema.