Search

In 145 patients, revaccination was performed with the culprit vaccine, which was well tolerated in 126 of the patients, and 15 of the patients had an alternative COVID-19 vaccine (other mRNA vaccine for 12), which was well tolerated in 13 of the patients (Figure 1). Keywords: allergy; anaphylaxis; COVID-19-mRNA vaccines EN allergy anaphylaxis COVID-19-mRNA vaccines 2320 2323 4 08/02/23 20230801 NES 230801 To the Editor, The mechanisms of allergic reactions to COVID-19-mRNA vaccines have not been elucidated. One hundred and sixty patients (84%) were revaccinated (122 under antihistamine premedication), 139 patients (87%) had good tolerance, and 30 patients refused further COVID-19 vaccination. [Extracted from the article]

Background: Anaphylaxis, which is rare, has been reported after COVID‐19 vaccination, but its management is not standardized. Method: Members of the European Network for Drug Allergy and the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology interested in drug allergy participated in an online questionnaire on pre‐vaccination screening and management of allergic reactions to COVID‐19 vaccines, and literature was analysed. Results: No death due to anaphylaxis to COVID‐19 vaccines has been confirmed in scientific literature. Potential allergens, polyethylene glycol (PEG), polysorbate and tromethamine are excipients. The authors propose allergy evaluation of persons with the following histories: 1—anaphylaxis to injectable drug or vaccine containing PEG or derivatives; 2—anaphylaxis to oral/topical PEG containing products; 3—recurrent anaphylaxis of unknown cause; 4—suspected or confirmed allergy to any mRNA vaccine; and 5—confirmed allergy to PEG or derivatives. We recommend a prick‐to‐prick skin test with the left‐over solution in the suspected vaccine vial to avoid waste. Prick test panel should include PEG 4000 or 3500, PEG 2000 and polysorbate 80. The value of in vitro test is arguable. Conclusions: These recommendations will lead to a better knowledge of the management and mechanisms involved in anaphylaxis to COVID‐19 vaccines and enable more people with history of allergy to be vaccinated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Keywords: drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms; maculopapular exanthema; microRNAs EN drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms maculopapular exanthema microRNAs 3279 3283 5 12/03/20 20201201 NES 201201 Abbreviations cADR atopic dermatitis DRESS drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms HC healthy controls MiRNA microRNA MPE maculopapular exanthema PCA principal component analyses To the Editor, The diagnosis of drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS), is challenging due to its heterogeneous clinical presentation and complex natural course.1 It is therefore sometimes difficult, at an early stage, to differentiate between maculopapular exanthema (MPE) and DRESS due to overlapping clinical presentations.2,3 To better characterize cutaneous adverse drug reactions (cADRs), several approaches have been proposed. Briefly, skin and blood samples were obtained from MPE (n = 6) patients, DRESS (n = 6) patients and HCs (n = 6). Overall, these 34 miRNA-based signatures correctly separated MPE and DRESS patients, except for 2 MPE patients (E2 and E4; Table 1) with herpes viral replication, who had skin miRNA expression profiles more similar to DRESS. Only blood miR-185-3p was significantly higher in MPE compared to HC samples (FC x1.5, adjusted I P i -value.03) (Appendix S3), and none of the blood miRNAs were differentially expressed between DRESS and HC patients, probably due to small sample size. [Extracted from the article]

The article offers information on the diagnosis of hypersensitivity reaction (HSR) to iodinated contrast media (ICM) is challenging when based on clinical history and skin tests. It mentions the objective of this study was to determine the negative predictive value (NPV) for skin tests as compared with the intravenous provocation tests (IPT) 50 mL; and also mentions the IPT was reduced to 10 mL with glomerular filtration rate (GFR).

Background Methods Results Conclusion Limited information is available on the use of omalizumab (OMA) updosing since its introduction as a second‐line therapy in chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) in 2014. Practical guidelines from health authorities are lacking, and the specific characteristics of patients requiring higher doses remain unknown. Our objectives were to characterize the patterns of OMA updosing (defined as changes in dose and/or injection intervals), to identify the predictive factors associated with updosing, and to improve CSU management.We conducted a prospective, multicentric, real‐life observational study, including patients diagnosed with CSU and starting OMA. The data were collected at 0, 3, 6, and 9 months. The primary endpoint was the frequency of OMA updosing at 3 months. The secondary endpoints included an analysis of updosed patients' profile, and an assessment of OMA efficacy and safety.We included 153 patients. Twenty percent of patients were updosed at 3 months, and 27% in total during the 9‐month follow‐up. Practitioners mainly chose to increase the frequency of injections (66%). At baseline, the updosed patients were more likely to have more severe CSU (UCT < 4, p < 0.030), a lower lymphocyte count (<2000/mm3, p = 0.037), and low IgE levels (<70 UI/mL, p = 0.024). The side effects of OMA were not more frequent after updosing.One in five patient underwent updosing within just 3 months. OMA updosing is frequent in particular in cases of severe disease and low IgE blood levels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic dramatically disrupts health care around the globe. The impact of the pandemic on chronic urticaria (CU) and its management are largely unknown., Aim: To understand how CU patients are affected by the COVID-19 pandemic; how specialists alter CU patient management; and the course of CU in patients with COVID-19., Materials and Methods: Our cross-sectional, international, questionnaire-based, multicenter UCARE COVID-CU study assessed the impact of the pandemic on patient consultations, remote treatment, changes in medications, and clinical consequences., Results: The COVID-19 pandemic severely impairs CU patient care, with less than 50% of the weekly numbers of patients treated as compared to before the pandemic. Reduced patient referrals and clinic hours were the major reasons. Almost half of responding UCARE physicians were involved in COVID-19 patient care, which negatively impacted on the care of urticaria patients. The rate of face-to-face consultations decreased by 62%, from 90% to less than half, whereas the rate of remote consultations increased by more than 600%, from one in 10 to more than two thirds. Cyclosporine and systemic corticosteroids, but not antihistamines or omalizumab, are used less during the pandemic. CU does not affect the course of COVID-19, but COVID-19 results in CU exacerbation in one of three patients, with higher rates in patients with severe COVID-19., Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic brings major changes and challenges for CU patients and their physicians. The long-term consequences of these changes, especially the increased use of remote consultations, require careful evaluation., (© 2020 The Authors. Allergy published by European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)