Search

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.)

Background: Many patients with common variable immunodeficiency (CVID) have a clinical history suggestive of allergic respiratory disease. However, in such individuals, the prevalence of asthma and the role of atopy have not been well established. The objective of this study was to evaluate pulmonary function and identify asthma in patients with CVID. We also investigated the role of IgE as a trigger of asthma in these patients., Methods: Sixty-two patients diagnosed with CVID underwent spirometry, as well as skin prick testing and in vitro determination of serum-specific IgE levels for aeroallergens, together with bronchial provocation with histamine and allergen., Results: The most common alteration identified through spirometry was obstructive lung disease, which was observed in 29 (47.5%) of the 62 patients evaluated. Eighteen (29.0%) of the 62 patients had a clinical history suggestive of allergic asthma. By the end of the study, asthma had been diagnosed in nine (14.5%) patients and atopy had been identified in six (9.7%). In addition, allergic asthma had been diagnosed in four patients (6.5% of the sample as a whole; 22.2% of the 18 patients with a clinical history suggestive of the diagnosis)., Conclusion: In this study, CVID patients testing negative for specific IgE antibodies and suspected of having allergic asthma presented a positive response to bronchial provocation tests with allergens. To our knowledge, this is the first such study. When CVID patients with a history suggestive of allergic asthma test negative on traditional tests, additional tests designed to identify allergic asthma might be conducted.