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.

Comparison of Long-Term Effectiveness and Safety of Upadacitinib for Atopic Dermatitis Between Dupilumab-Exposed and Dupilumab-Naïve Patients.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Upadacitinib is an oral selective Janus kinase-1 inhibitor approved for the treatment of moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) in patients [Formula: see text] 12 years of age. In real life, upadacitinib currently represents a valid therapeutic option for patients failing available systemic therapies, in particular patients who discontinued dupilumab because of lack of efficacy or occurrence of adverse events. The objectives of the present study were to compare the effectiveness and safety of upadacitinib in patients affected by AD who had previously failed dupilumab therapy versus biologic naïve patients. METHODS: A retrospective, multi-centre, observational, real-life study was conducted in four Italian dermatological referral centres (Milan, Perugia, Naples and Vicenza). Baseline characteristics included age, sex, AD history and severity, prior treatments, comorbidities and concomitant therapies. AD severity was assessed at baseline and at week 4 (W4), W16, W24 and W52, using Eczema Area Severity Index (EASI), Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) and Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (P-NRS) scores. Full blood count, hepatic and renal function, lipid panel, and muscle enzymes [lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) and creatine phosphokinase (CPK)] were assessed at baseline and at each follow-up visit. RESULTS: A total of 113 patients (72 males, 63.7%; mean age: 37.22 ± 16.8 years) were included in the analysis, all patients were in treatment and underwent follow-up period until W16, whilst 91 (80.5%) and 75 (66.4%) patients were in treatment and in follow-up period until W24 and W52, respectively. Mean EASI score significantly changed from 24.30 ± 10.27 to 1.28 ± 4.34, 0.74 ± 2.31 and 0.25 ± 1.34 at W16, W24 and W52, respectively (p < 0.0001). Specifically, at W16 the percentage of patients achieving EASI-75, EASI-90 and EASI-100 was 85.21, 76.35 and 66.11%, respectively. At W24, EASI-75, EASI-90 and EASI-100 were reached by 88.54, 85.42, and 78.37% of patients, respectively. Finally, 90.1% of patients achieved EASI-75, 88.3% achieved EASI-90 and 83.0% achieved EASI-100 at W52. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirmed the clinical effectiveness of upadacitinib treatment in adult patients in a real-world setting with moderate-to-severe AD who had discontinued dupilumab due to poor effectiveness or adverse events and who were biologic naïve; therefore, previous treatments do not seem to affect the response to upadacitinib treatment.

Quality of life in patients with allergic and immunologic skin diseases: in the eye of the beholder.

Allergic and immunologic skin diseases negatively impact the quality of life (QoL) of affected patients with detrimental consequences. Nonetheless, in everyday clinical practice the evaluation of QoL is often overlooked. Considering the increasing prevalence of atopic dermatitis, allergic contact dermatitis, hereditary angioedema, cutaneous mastocytosis, and urticaria, it is essential to determine the effects of allergic and immunologic skin diseases on QoL. A joint meeting (GET TOGETHER 2021) of the Italian Society of Allergology, Asthma and Clinical Immunology (SIAAIC) and the Italian Society of Allergological, Occupational and Environmental Dermatology (SIDAPA) aimed to summarize the features of the main QoL tools used in these diseases and to describe the extent of QoL impairment as well as the impact of treatments on QoL, particularly biologic therapies. The assessment of QoL in patients with allergic and immunologic skin diseases relies on generic, organ-specific and disease-specific questionnaires. While generic and organ-specific questionnaires allow comparison between different diseases, disease-specific questionnaires are designed and validated for specific cohorts: the QoL Index for Atopic Dermatitis (QoLIAD) and the Childhood Atopic Dermatitis Impact Scale (CADIS) in atopic dermatitis, the ACD-11 in allergic contact dermatitis, the Angioedema QoL Questionnaire (AE-QoL) and the Hereditary Angioedema QoL questionnaire (HAE-QoL) in hereditary angioedema, the Mastocytosis QoL Questionnaires (MCQoL e MQLQ) in cutaneous mastocytosis, and the Chronic Urticaria QoL questionnaire (CU-Q2oL) in urticaria. Among the many factors that variably contribute to QoL impairment, pruritus can represent the leading cause of patient discomfort. Biologic therapies significantly ameliorate QoL in atopic dermatitis, hereditary angioedema, mastocytosis and chronic urticaria. In general, adequate management strategies are essential for improving QoL in patients with allergic and immunologic skin diseases.

Atopic dermatitis in adolescents: Effectiveness and safety of dupilumab in a 16-week real-life experience during the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy.

Dupilumab showed significant improvement of adolescent atopic dermatitis (AD) signs and symptoms in clinical trials, with a good safety profile. Herein we report the real-word effectiveness and safety of dupilumab in adolescents with moderate to severe AD from January to October 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy. All patients had a diagnosis of AD for a mean [SD] 12.8 [3.1] years. Baseline demographics, AD characteristics (EASI, cDLQI, NRS itch score, NRS sleep loss score) at baseline and week 16, and safety data were collected. Nineteen patients (52.6% men; mean [SD] age, 15.6 [1.4] years [range, 13-17 years]) were included in the analysis. All patients reached EASI-50 and 78.9% EASI-75, especially in those with EASI≥30 and BMI < 25 at baseline, with marked reduction for cDLQI (77.4%), NRS itch score (5.9 point), and NRS sleep loss score (87.5%). One patient contracted asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection and 1 developed mild conjuntivitis, without stopping dupilumab. In this real-word experience the effectiveness of dupilumab was excellent and resulted higher than that observed in clinical trials, with a good safety profile during COVID-19 pandemic.