Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on the course of refractory chronic spontaneous urticaria under omalizumab treatment.

BACKGROUND: The course of chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) can be influenced by infections, depression, and stress. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to investigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the course of refractory CSU together with patient adherence to omalizumab and treatment adjustments. METHODS: Urticaria Activity Score (UAS7) was used to assess disease activity. Fear of COVID-19 Scale (FC-19s), and Depression Anxiety Stress Scale (DASS-21s) were performed to assess mental health status. All scales were performed during the Quarantine Period (QP) and Return to the Normal Period (RTNP). UAS7 Before Pandemic (BP) was recorded from the patients medical records. RESULTS: The authors evaluated 104 omalizumab-receiving CSU patients. UAS7 scores during QP were significantly higher than those in RTNP and BP (p < 0.01). DASS-21 and FC-19 scores were significantly higher during QP compared to RTNP (p < 0.01). Nineteen (18.2%) patients ceased omalizumab, 9 patients prolonged the intervals between subsequent doses during the pandemic. UAS7 scores in QP were significantly higher in patients who ceased omalizumab than in those who continued (p < 0.001). Among patients who continued omalizumab, 22.4% had an increase in urticaria activity and higher FC-19 scores in comparison with those with stable disease activity (p = 0.008). STUDY LIMITATIONS: The small sample size of patients with prolonged intervals of omalizumab and the lack of mental health evaluation with the same tools prior to the study. CONCLUSION: Fear induced by COVID-19 can determine an increase in disease activity. Therefore, patients on omalizumab should continue their treatment and prolonged interval without omalizumab can be considered in patients with good urticaria control.

Evaluation of skin test indications for general anesthetics in real life: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: In daily practice, atopic patients and those who have other drug allergies are referred to allergy clinics for evaluation of possible general anesthetic allergy despite the fact that it is not recommended in recent guidelines. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this prospective study is to determine the negative predictive value of skin tests for common general anesthetic drugs prior to general anesthesia in atopic patients and in patients who had drug allergies by including the data of those who had previously tolerated or reacted to general anesthesia. METHODS: A database program was constituted to collect the preoperative skin test data of patients referred to our clinic between 2013 and 2018. Demographic and clinical history, medications implemented during perioperative period, reactions, and results of skin tests performed with anesthetic drugs and latex were evaluated. RESULTS: Four hundred fifty-nine out of the total 1167 patients referred fulfilled the inclusion criteria for further evaluation. Nearly 75% of the patients were female and mean age was 46.3 ±â€¯14.3 years. History of hypersensitivity reactions (HRs) due to NSAIDs and/or antibiotics, radiocontrast agents, local anesthetics, and food were present in the 53.1%, 4.1%, 1.5%, and 2.0%, respectively. The negative predictive values of skin tests for general anesthetics were in the range of 80-100%. Only 4 patients (0,87%) experienced HRs during operation. CONCLUSION: These real-life data reveal high rates of negative predictive value of skin tests with general anesthetic drugs and a low reaction rate in atopic patients and in patients with allergy to other drugs.