Cutaneous reactions following COVID-19 vaccination assessed by dermatologists: a single-institutional study in Germany.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Cutaneous reactions following COVID-19 vaccination have been frequently described, whereas larger case series by dermatologists are lacking. This study assesses SARS-CoV-2 vaccination-associated skin reactions, severity, treatment, course, eliciting vaccines, allergy test results and tolerance to revaccination. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Single-institutional, non-interventional study of dermatologists assessing cutaneous manifestations in 83 patients in Germany. RESULTS: 93 reactions were presented. Manifestations clustered into immediate (n = 51, 54.8%) and delayed hypersensitivity reactions (n = 10, 10.8%), chronic inflammatory skin diseases (n = 13, 14.0%), reactivation of latent herpes virus infection (pityriasis rosea/herpes zoster; n = 9; 9.7%) and others (n = 10, 10.8%). Vaccination was associated with new (76.3%) - mostly hypersensitivity reactions - or exacerbation of known skin diseases (23.7%), in this case predominantly chronic inflammatory skin diseases. Reactions occurred primarily within the first week (72.8%) and after first vaccination (62.0%). Treatment was required in 83.9% and hospitalization in 19.4%. In 48.8% revaccination led to recurrence of the same reactions. Disease was ongoing at last consultation in 22.6%, primarily in chronic inflammatory skin diseases. Allergy tests were performed in 15 patients (18.1%) and resulted negative. CONCLUSIONS: It can be assumed that vaccination may trigger immune activation-related reactions especially in those patients predisposed to develop respective skin diseases.

Do basophil activation tests help elucidate allergic reactions to the ingredients in COVID-19 vaccines?

The worldwide use of COVID-19 vaccines has shown that immediate allergic reactions to the ingredients are rare but should be clarified by means of an allergological work-up. This review aims to highlight the current state of knowledge and possible pathogenesis based on the literature published to date. In addition to recording a detailed history and performing skin tests, cellular tests (basophil activation or basophil histamine release test) by using the vaccines or modified compounds containing polyethylene glycol (PEG), rather than unmodified PEGs, have proven to be particularly helpful. Negative results with vaccines seem to indicate tolerance. Details of the performance of these cellular tests with different vaccines, PEGs of different molecular weights, other ingredients of the vaccines, as well as other PEGylated drugs, and the results in the context of COVID-19 vaccination of various working groups worldwide are summarized.

Experience with polyethylene glycol allergy-guided risk management for COVID-19 vaccine anaphylaxis.

BACKGROUND: Polyethylene glycol (PEG) may elicit anaphylaxis to COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, and guidance for patients at risk is needed. METHODS: In retrospective patients with PEG allergy collected from 2006 till 2019, clinical, skin, and basophil activation test (BAT) characteristics discriminative for PEG allergy were analyzed and compared with the literature. In 421 prospective real-life patients asking for allergy workup for COVID-19 vaccine hypersensitivity in 2020/2021, risk assessment was performed and tolerance of the recommended vaccination approach was assessed. RESULTS: Ten patients with PEG allergy were found in the retrospective cohort. Patients reacted with immediate anaphylaxis (100%) not only to PEG-based laxatives/bowel preparations or injections, but also to cold medication, antiseptics, analgetics, or antibiotics. Skin tests ± BAT with PEG ± elicitors were positive in 10/10. Provocation tests were positive in 7/9 patients. From the prospective cohort, 370/421 patients self-reporting increased risk for vaccine allergy lacked criteria necessitating allergy workup and were recommended for routine vaccination. A total of 51/421 patients were tested, and three (6%) with PEG allergy were identified, whereas 48 patients remained negative in skin tests. Vaccination was recommended in all those patients. No hypersensitivity reactions were reported to vaccination including six PEG-allergic patients tolerating COVID-19 vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: Taking a detailed history excluded PEG allergy in most referred patients and enabled direct safe vaccination. Immediate urticaria/anaphylaxis to typical elicitors identified patients requiring PEG allergy workup. Skin tests ± BAT identified PEG allergy and helped to select the vaccine and the vaccination approach. Even PEG-allergic patients can tolerate COVID-19 vaccines.

Allergy to PEG (polyethylene glycol) - sensitivity of basophil activation test with COVID-19 mRNA-vaccine BNT162B2.

Basophil activation test (BAT) with COVID-19 mRNA vaccine seems particularly suitable for detecting sensitization to polyethylene glycol (PEG) in patients with PEG allergy. It was the aim of this study to determine the cutoffs for BAT using BNT162B2 (Comirnaty®) in a larger group of PEG allergic patients and controls. 10 PEG allergic patients and 10 controls were studied. BAT was performed using anti-CCR3 for basophil identification and anti-CD63 to assess basophil activation. Incubations with BNT162B2 at four different concentrations were performed. Basophil activation was significantly higher in PEG allergic patients compared to controls at the higher concentrations used. ROC curves showed best results with a sensitivity of 60% and specificity of 100% with a cutoff of 5% CD63+ basophils at a concentration of 4.5 µg/ml. Controls showed no positive results. In our group of PEG allergic patients, a concentration of 4.5 µg/ml BNT162B2 with a cutoff of 5% CD63+ basophils was the most suitable condition for identifying patients with a sensitization to PEG. Allergological work-up of PEG allergic patients including BAT with PEGylated lipid nanoparticles might play a role in the future when these substances will be used for other vaccines and cancer immunotherapies.

Expert-Guided Large Language Models for Clinical Decision Support in Precision Oncology.

PURPOSE: Rapidly expanding medical literature challenges oncologists seeking targeted cancer therapies. General-purpose large language models (LLMs) lack domain-specific knowledge, limiting their clinical utility. This study introduces the LLM system Medical Evidence Retrieval and Data Integration for Tailored Healthcare (MEREDITH), designed to support treatment recommendations in precision oncology. Built on Google's Gemini Pro LLM, MEREDITH uses retrieval-augmented generation and chain of thought. METHODS: We evaluated MEREDITH on 10 publicly available fictional oncology cases with iterative feedback from a molecular tumor board (MTB) at a major German cancer center. Initially limited to PubMed-indexed literature (draft system), MEREDITH was enhanced to incorporate clinical studies on drug response within the specific tumor type, trial databases, drug approval status, and oncologic guidelines. The MTB provided a benchmark with manually curated treatment recommendations and assessed the clinical relevance of LLM-generated options (qualitative assessment). We measured semantic cosine similarity between LLM suggestions and clinician responses (quantitative assessment). RESULTS: MEREDITH identified a broader range of treatment options (median 4) compared with MTB experts (median 2). These options included therapies on the basis of preclinical data and combination treatments, expanding the treatment possibilities for consideration by the MTB. This broader approach was achieved by incorporating a curated medical data set that contextualized molecular targetability. Mirroring the approach MTB experts use to evaluate MTB cases improved the LLM's ability to generate relevant suggestions. This is supported by high concordance between LLM suggestions and expert recommendations (94.7% for the enhanced system) and a significant increase in semantic similarity from the draft to the enhanced system (from 0.71 to 0.76, P = .01). CONCLUSION: Expert feedback and domain-specific data augment LLM performance. Future research should investigate responsible LLM integration into real-world clinical workflows.

Global Tanning Bed Advertising: A Comparison of Legal Regulations on Three Continents.

Artificial ultraviolet radiation from tanning beds has been classified as carcinogenic by the International Agency for Research on Cancer in 2009. Several countries have subsequently introduced comprehensive legislation regulating commercial indoor tanning. Specific aspects of these regulations address tanning bed advertising and information requirements for tanning bed customers, which have been previously neglected in international comparisons of indoor tanning regulations. We performed a systematic search regarding legislation on these aspects in 131 legislative units across three continents (North America, Australia/New Zealand, Europe). The legal restrictions found varied widely in type and content. In 49 legislative units we identified total (n = 8) or partial legal bans (n = 41) on advertising for indoor tanning, while 64 legislative units enacted 5regulations that necessitate the dissemination of different types of specific health information to tanning bed customers. Nearly 40% of the legislative units of the study region lacked any legislation on these issues altogether. The heterogenous results emphasize the need for an international dialogue between health authorities and governments to harmonize the regulatory framework for tanning bed advertising and information requirements to a level better protecting the public from skin cancer. Our comprehensive international comparison can serve as a starting point for such a harmonization process that may ultimately protect the public worldwide from misleading tanning bed advertising.

SARS-CoV-2 and allergy - what have we learned after two and a half years?

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) has significantly hampered the regular workflow for allergists and allergy departments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The purpose of this review is to highlight our own experiences on SARS-CoV-2 and allergy as well as to discuss findings from the literature. RESULTS: Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 is needed for protection against severe infection. Skin reactions may arise with SARS-CoV-2 infections. Short-term general immune reactions and skin reactions are also possible upon SARS-CoV-2 vaccination; however, they recur in only a proportion of patients during follow-up vaccinations. Initial reports of anaphylaxis after vaccination fueled public fear. On the other hand, more recent epidemiologic data do not show a substantially increased anaphylaxis risk compared with other vaccines. Fear-related reactions may be essential for many "anaphylaxis" reports. In Germany, the flow chart developed by Paul-Ehrlich-Institut (PEI) and Robert-Koch-Institut (RKI) together with the allergological societies helps to care for patients with suspected "allergy history" safely and effectively. Through this, patients with increased risk of anaphylaxis to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and their ingredients (e.g., polyethylene glycol (PEG), polysorbate 80) are identified. However, since only small amounts of these excipients are contained in mRNA vaccines, even some PEG-allergic patients can tolerate the vaccination. In Germany, an allergy test-guided procedure is recommended for high-risk patients, including an allergy history, prick tests, intradermal and basophil activation tests, and, if necessary, provocation tests. This also appears effective for anxiety reduction in patients with vaccination skepticism. To date, all of our patients have been able to be vaccinated with SARS-CoV-2 vaccines without the occurrence of significant reactions. CONCLUSION: Many initial concerns about unexpected side effects of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination have not been confirmed. The flowchart and, in the case of suspicion of hypersensitivity, an allergy test-guided risk assessment helps to reduce patients' fear of vaccination and enables safe vaccination.

Inter-Rater Agreement in Assessing Risk of Bias in Melanoma Prediction Studies Using the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST): Results from a Controlled Experiment on the Effect of Specific Rater Training.

Assessing the risk of bias (ROB) of studies is an important part of the conduct of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in clinical medicine. Among the many existing ROB tools, the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) is a rather new instrument specifically designed to assess the ROB of prediction studies. In our study we analyzed the inter-rater reliability (IRR) of PROBAST and the effect of specialized training on the IRR. Six raters independently assessed the risk of bias (ROB) of all melanoma risk prediction studies published until 2021 (n = 42) using the PROBAST instrument. The raters evaluated the ROB of the first 20 studies without any guidance other than the published PROBAST literature. The remaining 22 studies were assessed after receiving customized training and guidance. Gwet's AC1 was used as the primary measure to quantify the pairwise and multi-rater IRR. Depending on the PROBAST domain, results before training showed a slight to moderate IRR (multi-rater AC1 ranging from 0.071 to 0.535). After training, the multi-rater AC1 ranged from 0.294 to 0.780 with a significant improvement for the overall ROB rating and two of the four domains. The largest net gain was achieved in the overall ROB rating (difference in multi-rater AC1: 0.405, 95%-CI 0.149-0.630). In conclusion, without targeted guidance, the IRR of PROBAST is low, questioning its use as an appropriate ROB instrument for prediction studies. Intensive training and guidance manuals with context-specific decision rules are needed to correctly apply and interpret the PROBAST instrument and to ensure consistency of ROB ratings.

The Role of the Global Solar UV Index for Sun Protection of Children in German Kindergartens.

More than twenty-five years ago, the Global Solar UV index (UVI) was introduced as a simple means of visualizing the intensity of ultraviolet radiation and to alert people to the need for sun protection. In our survey, among directors of 436 kindergartens in southern Germany we investigated the level of awareness and knowledge about the UVI as well as the practical consequences for sun protection in kindergartens. Less than half of the directors (n = 208, 47.7%) had ever heard of the UVI, and only a small minority of them (n = 34, 8.7%) used the daily UVI information to adapt sun protective measures in their kindergartens. Detailed knowledge about the UVI was a rarity among the respondents. The proportion of respondents with self-perceived detailed UVI knowledge was five times higher than the actual knowledge assessed by an in-depth structured interview using open-ended questions about the UVI (14.2% vs. 2.8%). No clear relationship between UVI awareness, knowledge, and use and directors' age and gender was found. The UVI-related variables also showed no association with directors' knowledge of risk factors for skin cancer and their attitudes towards tanned skin. Overall, the results paint a sobering picture regarding the penetration of the UVI into sun protection policies of German kindergartens. Future public health campaigns should aim to increase the awareness and understanding of the UVI as well as its relevance for sun protection of children.

Tanning Bed Legislation for Minors: A Comprehensive International Comparison.

Tanning beds have been classified as carcinogenic to humans. As a result, many countries have enacted laws regulating the use of commercial tanning beds, including bans for minors. However, there is no international overview of the current legal status of access restrictions for minors that provides details on their specific design regarding age limits and possible exceptions to the statutory regulation. Therefore, we performed a comprehensive web search of current tanning bed legislation for minors on the three continents North America, Australia, and Europe. Our findings regarding the existence and concrete design of access restrictions are presented graphically, using maps. We found a wide variety of different legislations. In Australia, a total ban on tanning beds exists, while in New Zealand, tanning bed use is banned for minors. In Europe, about half of the countries have implemented a strict ban for minors. In North America, we found differences in the age limit for access restrictions between the states, provinces, and territories for those regions that implemented a ban for minors. In the United States, some states have rather "soft bans" that allow use by minors with different types of parental consent. The patchwork in legislation calls for harmonization. Therefore, our comparison is an important starting point for institutions such as the World Health Organization or the European Commission to advance their goals toward a harmonization of tanning bed legislation in general and for minors in particular.

Using the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) to Evaluate Melanoma Prediction Studies.

Rising incidences of cutaneous melanoma have fueled the development of statistical models that predict individual melanoma risk. Our aim was to assess the validity of published prediction models for incident cutaneous melanoma using a standardized procedure based on PROBAST (Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool). We included studies that were identified by a recent systematic review and updated the literature search to ensure that our PROBAST rating included all relevant studies. Six reviewers assessed the risk of bias (ROB) for each study using the published "PROBAST Assessment Form" that consists of four domains and an overall ROB rating. We further examined a temporal effect regarding changes in overall and domain-specific ROB rating distributions. Altogether, 42 studies were assessed, of which the vast majority (n = 34; 81%) was rated as having high ROB. Only one study was judged as having low ROB. The main reasons for high ROB ratings were the use of hospital controls in case-control studies and the omission of any validation of prediction models. However, our temporal analysis results showed a significant reduction in the number of studies with high ROB for the domain "analysis". Nevertheless, the evidence base of high-quality studies that can be used to draw conclusions on the prediction of incident cutaneous melanoma is currently much weaker than the high number of studies on this topic would suggest.

Reporting Quality of Studies Developing and Validating Melanoma Prediction Models: An Assessment Based on the TRIPOD Statement.

Transparent and accurate reporting is essential to evaluate the validity and applicability of risk prediction models. Our aim was to evaluate the reporting quality of studies developing and validating risk prediction models for melanoma according to the TRIPOD (Transparent Reporting of a multivariate prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis) checklist. We included studies that were identified by a recent systematic review and updated the literature search to ensure that our TRIPOD rating included all relevant studies. Six reviewers assessed compliance with all 37 TRIPOD components for each study using the published "TRIPOD Adherence Assessment Form". We further examined a potential temporal effect of the reporting quality. Altogether 42 studies were assessed including 35 studies reporting the development of a prediction model and seven studies reporting both development and validation. The median adherence to TRIPOD was 57% (range 29% to 78%). Study components that were least likely to be fully reported were related to model specification, title and abstract. Although the reporting quality has slightly increased over the past 35 years, there is still much room for improvement. Adherence to reporting guidelines such as TRIPOD in the publication of study results must be adopted as a matter of course to achieve a sufficient level of reporting quality necessary to foster the use of the prediction models in applications.