Search

Background: Non‐sedating H1‐antihistamines (nsAH) are the most commonly used treatment for chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU). Many patients use them as on‐demand (OD) therapy rather than a maintenance treatment. Here, we compared OD versus daily maintenance treatment with the nsAH rupatadine, assessed the efficacy of rupatadine updosing, and investigated potential long‐term disease‐modifying effects. Methods: This multicenter, randomized study consisted of 2 weeks of screening, 8 weeks of double‐blind treatment, and 6 weeks of treatment‐free follow‐up (OD allowed). Adult patients were randomized to 10 mg rupatadine OD or 10 mg rupatadine daily. At Week 4, if patients did not have a complete response, they switched from 10 to 20 mg rupatadine daily or underwent sham updosing (patients on 10 mg rupatadine OD). The primary aim was to compare CSU disease activity at the end of follow‐up between daily versus OD. Additionally, we assessed the efficacy of rupatadine updosing. Major outcomes were disease activity, CSU‐related quality of life (QoL), and disease control. Results: At Week 4, disease activity and QoL significantly improved in daily versus OD‐treated patients. Updosing of rupatadine did not improve the mean disease activity, but the number of complete responders increased during updosing from 5% to 22%. At the end of follow‐up, the disease activity of patients treated OD versus daily was not significantly different. Conclusions: Daily rupatadine treatment significantly improved CSU disease activity and QoL during treatment versus OD treatment but not after discontinuation of rupatadine, indicating the benefits of a daily maintenance nsAH schedule. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Summary: The consensus‐based guideline "Diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of hand eczema (HE)" provides concrete instructions and recommendations for diagnosis, prevention, and therapy of HE based on an evidence‐ and consensus‐based approach. The guideline was created based on the German guideline "Management von Handekzemen" from 2009 and the current guideline of the European Society of Contact Dermatitis (ESCD) "Guidelines for diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of hand eczema" from 2022. The general goal of the guideline is to provide dermatologists and allergologists in practice and clinics with an accepted, evidence‐based decision‐making tool for selecting and conducting suitable and sufficient therapy for patients with hand eczema. The guideline is based on two Cochrane reviews of therapeutic and preventive interventions for HE. The remaining chapters were mainly developed and consented based on non‐systematic literature research by the expert group. The expert group consisted of members of allergological and occupational dermatological professional associations and working groups, a patient representative, and methodologists. The proposals for recommendations and key statements were consented by using a nominal group process during a consensus conference on September 15, 2022. The structured consensus‐building process was professionally moderated. This guideline is valid until February 22, 2028. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: This publication is the second part of the German‐language S3 guideline on urticaria. It covers the management of urticaria and should be used together with Part 1 of the guideline on classification and diagnosis. This publication was prepared according to the criteria of the AWMF on the basis of the international English‐language S3 guideline with special consideration of health system conditions in German‐speaking countries. Chronic urticaria has a high impact on the quality of life and daily activities of patients. Therefore, if causal factors cannot be eliminated, effective symptomatic treatment is necessary. The recommended first‐line treatment is to administer new generation, non‐sedating H1 antihistamines. If the standard dose is not sufficiently effective, the dose should be increased up to fourfold. For patients who do not respond to this treatment, the second‐line treatment in addition to antihistamines in the treatment algorithm is omalizumab and, if this treatment fails, ciclosporin. Other low‐evidence therapeutic agents should only be used if all treatments in the treatment algorithm agreed upon by the guideline group fail. Both the benefit‐risk profile and cost should be considered. Corticosteroids are not recommended for long‐term treatment due to their inevitable severe side effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Journal der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Summary: The lifetime prevalence of urticaria, a severe allergic disease, is almost 20%. It not only limits the quality of life of those affected, but also their general performance at work and in their daily activities. This publication is the first section of the Urticaria Guideline. It covers the classification and diagnosis of urticaria, taking into account the major advances in research into its causes, triggering factors and pathomechanisms. It also addresses strategies for the efficient diagnosis of the different subtypes of urticaria. This is crucial for individual, patient‐oriented treatment, which is covered in the second part of the guideline, published separately. This German‐language guideline was developed according to the criteria of the AWMF on the basis of the international English‐language S3 guideline with special consideration of health system characteristics in the German‐speaking countries. This first part of the guideline describes the classification of urticaria, distinguishing spontaneously occurring wheals (hives) and angioedema from forms of urticaria with inducible symptoms. Urticaria is defined as sudden onset of wheals, angioedema, or both, but is to be distinguished from conditions in which wheals occur as a short‐term symptom, such as anaphylaxis. The diagnosis is based on (a limited number of) laboratory tests, but especially on medical history. In addition, validated instruments are available to measure the severity, activity and course of the disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Systemic allergic reactions to vaccines are very rare. In this study we assessed the management and outcome of suspected SARS‐CoV‐2 vaccine hypersensitivity. Methods: Totally, 334 individuals underwent an allergy work up regarding SARS‐CoV‐2 vaccination (group A: 115 individuals suspected to be at increased risk for vaccine‐related reactions before vaccination and group B: 219 patients with reactions after COVID vaccination). The large majority of the SPT/IDT with the vaccines were negative; however, we identified in 14.1% (n = 47) a possible sensitization to the SARS‐CoV‐2 vaccine and/or its ingredients defined as one positive skin test. Of the 219 individuals (group B) who experienced symptoms suspicious for a hypersensitivity reaction after vaccination, 214 were reported after the first vaccination with a mRNA vaccine (157 mRNA (Comirnaty®, 38 Spikevax®) and 18 with a vector vaccine (Vaxzevria®), 5 cases were after the second vaccination. Results: The symptom profile in group B was as follows: skin symptoms occurred in 115 cases (n = 59 angioedema, n = 50 generalized urticaria and n = 23 erythema/flush. Seventy individuals had cardiovascular, 53 respiratory and 17 gastrointestinal symptoms. Of the overall 334 individuals, 78 patients tolerated (re)‐vaccination (out of skin test positive/negative 7/19 from group A and 17/35 from group B). Conclusion: Proven IgE‐mediated hypersensitivity to SARS‐CoV‐2 vaccines is extremely rare and not increased in comparison with reported hypersensitivity to other vaccines. The value of skin tests is unclear and nonspecific reactions, in particular when intradermal testing is applied, should be considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Essential oils (EOs) are widely used in cosmetics, perfumes, massage fluids, aroma therapy and natural medicine. Some EOs contain contact sensitizers. Objectives: To describe the frequency of sensitization to EOs in dermatitis patients presenting in skin clinics including concomitant reactions, to evaluate the EO patch test preparations and to identify patient groups with an increased risk of EO sensitization. Patients and methods: Retrospective analysis of data from the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK), 2010–2019. Results: Twelve EOs were patch tested in an aimed manner in 10 930 patients, of whom 908 (8.3%) reacted to at least 1 EO. Only 6 EOs elicited more than 1% positive patch test reactions: ylang ylang (I + II) oil (3.9%), lemongrass oil (2.6%), jasmine absolute (1.8%), sandalwood oil (1.8%), clove oil (1.6%) and neroli oil (1.1%). Concomitant reactions among EOs or to EOs and fragrances were frequent. Among EO‐positive patients, women, leg dermatitis patients, patients aged 40 years or more, masseurs and cosmeticians were over‐represented. Conclusions: Sensitization to EOs occurs, albeit infrequently in most cases. Masseurs and cosmeticians have an increased risk of sensitization to EOs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Contact dermatitis is an inflammation of the epidermis and dermis at the site of exposure triggered by external agents. The two main forms are irritant and allergic contact dermatitis, which cause significant health and socioeconomic costs in addition to a marked reduction in quality of life. The anamnesis and the clinical picture are decisive for the necessary diagnostic measures. The most accurate possible diagnostic classification of contact dermatitis by means of allergological testing is important for disease management, since not only classical eczema therapy but also avoidance of the exogenous triggering factors are of great importance here. The choice of therapy should be based on the acuity, clinical severity, morphology of the lesions and localization of the contact dermatitis. A combination of basic therapy, topical, physical, and systemic therapy adapted to the patient's needs is required, whereby not all forms of therapy must be carried out simultaneously but can be used in a varying manner. Primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention strategies aim at the recognition of the triggering noxae or allergens with subsequent contact avoidance or minimization. The present S1‐guideline on contact dermatitis is primarily intended to provide dermatologists, allergologists and physicians working in allergology and occupational dermatology with a decision‐making aid for the selection and implementation of suitable and sufficient diagnostics, therapy, and prevention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background: Omalizumab, a humanized recombinant monoclonal anti‐IgE antibody, proved to be effective in patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU), including severe and treatment‐refractory CSU. Here, we report omalizumab's effect on gene expression in skin biopsies from CSU patients enrolled in a double‐blind, placebo‐controlled study. Methods: Chronic spontaneous urticaria patients (18‐75 years) were randomized to either 300 mg omalizumab (n = 20) or placebo (n = 10) administered s.c. every 4 weeks for 12 weeks (NCT01599637). Lesional and nonlesional skin biopsies were collected from the same area of consenting patients and assessed at baseline and on Day 85 compared with skin biopsies from the same area of 10 untreated healthy volunteers (HVs). Gene expression data were generated using Affymetrix HG‐U133Plus2.0 microarrays. Statistical analyses were performed using R packages. Results: At baseline, 63 transcripts were differentially expressed between lesional and nonlesional skin. Two‐thirds of these lesional signatures were also differentially expressed between lesional and HV skin. Upon treatment with omalizumab, >75% of lesional signatures changed to reflect nonlesional skin expression levels (different vs placebo, P < 0.01). Transcripts upregulated in lesional skin (vs nonlesional and/or HV skin) suggested increased mast cell/leukocyte infiltration (FCER1G, C3AR1, CD93, S100A8, and S100A9), increased oxidative stress, vascularization (CYR61), and skin repair events (KRT6A, KRT16). Lesional signatures were not modulated by treatment in nonresponders (defined based on UAS7 longitudinal changes ≥16). Conclusion: Omalizumab, in treatment responders, reverted transcriptional signatures associated with CSU lesion phenotype to reflect nonlesional/HV expression levels; this is consistent with observed omalizumab‐mediated clinical improvement observed in patients with CSU. The gene expression of the lesional skin of patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria shows a distinct signature when compared to their nonlesional skin and the skin of healthy volunteers. The pattern of gene expression in the lesional skin of omalizumab‐treated patients are different than before treatment, but not in their nonlesional skin. In treatment responders, omalizumab treatment shows reverted transcriptional signatures associated with CSU lesion phenotype to reflect nonlesional/healthy volunteer expression levels consistent with observed clinical improvement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Zusammenfassung Die Inzidenz allergischer Erkrankungen ist in den letzten Jahrzehnten dramatisch gestiegen, so dass diese Erkrankungen jetzt zu den 'Volkskrankheiten' gezählt werden müssen. Allergenexpositionsmeidung galt früher als wichtigste Maßnahme der primären Prävention. Zunehmend zeigen Studien, dass für die Entwicklung immunologischer Toleranz die Auseinandersetzung des Immunsystems mit Allergenen notwendig ist. Die Diagnostik basiert auf Anamnese, Hauttests und Bestimmung von spezifischen IgE-Antikörpern. Durch Komponenten-basierte Diagnostik kann eine primäre Sensibilisierung gegen eine Allergenquelle von Kreuzreaktionen durch Sensibilisierung gegen Panallergene oder kreuzreagierende Kohlenhydratepitope abgegrenzt werden. Die symptomatische Behandlung führt nur zu einer vorübergehenden Linderung der klinischen Beschwerden; durch spezifische Immuntherapie dagegen kann ein dauerhafter Effekt und möglicherweise eine Heilung erzielt werden. Die Auswahl von Allergenen für die spezifische Immuntherapie (SIT) wird durch das Leitallergenprinzip beeinflusst. Verwendet werden sollten Präparate, deren Wirksamkeit und Sicherheit in kontrollierten klinischen Studien belegt worden ist. Für die subkutane Immuntherapie stehen für eine Vielzahl von Allergenen geeignete und zugelassene Präparate zur Verfügung. Die Wirksamkeit der sublingualen Therapie ist insbesondere für Gräser- aber auch Baumpollenextrakte durch große klinische Studien belegt, so dass Präparate mit diesen Allergenen regulär zugelassen sind. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent decades, the incidence of allergic diseases has dramatically increased, by now affecting a large percentage of the population. For a long time, allergen avoidance was considered the most crucial measure in primary allergy prevention. However, studies have increasingly shown that exposure to allergens is an essential prerequisite for the development of immunological tolerance. Diagnostic workup is based on patient history, skin tests, and measurement of specific IgE antibodies. The introduction of component-based diagnostic workup offer an option to differentiate between primary sensitization and cross-reactivity caused by sensitization to panallergens or sensitization to cross-reactive carbohydrate epitopes. Symptomatic treatment only leads to temporary relief of allergic symptoms. By contrast, specific immunotherapy (SIT) may have long-lasting therapeutic effects and potentially even result in a complete cure. The selection of allergens for SIT is guided by the principle of major allergens. It is recommended to use those preparations that have been proven safe and effective in controlled clinical studies. With respect to subcutaneous immunotherapy, a host of tested and approved extracts are available for a wide range of different allergens. Large clinical trials have also confirmed the efficacy of sublingual immunotherapy with grass and also birch pollen extracts, which has led to the official approval of some preparations containing these allergens. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary Background: Pressure urticaria as a subform of physical urticaria is rare and treatment is often difficult. Established therapeutic regimes include antihistamines (generally exceeding approved dosages in order to achieve a therapeutic benefit) or antihistamines combined with montelukast. Complete relief of symptoms is difficult. Patients and methods: We used dapsone as an early therapeutic alternative in the event of treatment failure and established a standardized therapeutic regime at our clinic. We surveyed 31 patients retrospectively who had received dapsone between 2003-2009. Results: In 74 % of patients in whom symptoms persisted despite established therapies, the results of treatment with dapsone were good or very good. Longer-term pressure urticaria and the co-existence of a chronic spontaneous urticaria were associated with a smaller benefit (p<0.05). No significant effects were found related to age, gender, duration of therapy, side-effects, or Met-Hb elevation (a tendency toward a decreased benefit was associated with middle-age, male sex, shorter duration of therapy, observed side-effects, and Met-Hb elevation). Conclusions: Therapy is well tolerated and results in a good therapeutic benefit which lasts after termination of therapy. With adequate monitoring, the use of dapsone in patients with pressure urticaria has such a good risk-benefit ratio that we support early treatment initiation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The concentrations of proteins, allergens and rubber chemicals are essential parameters of the allergenicity of NRL gloves. To date, a standardized method has been given only for analysis of the protein concentration (DIN EN 455-3), and not for the concentrations of allergens and rubber chemicals. In the present study, we investigated 11 brands of surgical gloves currently available on the German market. Additionally 1 glove, not subjected to final leaching procedures, was added for comparison purposes. Protein concentrations were analysed by different methods in different laboratories. Allergen concentrations were assayed by prick tests in NRL-allergic volunteers and by RAST inhibition methods. Rubber chemicals were analysed by HPTLC and GC. The protein concentrations analysed by the Lowry method in the 2 laboratories gave concordant results, but the correlations between protein and allergen concentrations were low. The protein concentration analysed by HPLC correlated with the allergen concentration, and gave better information on the allergenicity of the gloves. The development of standardized methods for allergen analysis in the assessment routine is necessary, due to significant discrepancy between protein and allergen levels of some gloves. Thiurams were not found in any of the gloves, though carbamates were present in all gloves tested. Our data indicate that washing procedures have little or no effect on the concentration of rubber chemicals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Natural rubber latex allergy is an IgE-mediated disease that is caused by proteins that elute from commercial latex products. A complementary DNA (cDNA) coding for Hev b 9, an enolase (2-phospho- d-glycerate hydrolyase) and allergen from latex of the rubber tree Hevea brasiliensis , was amplified by PCR. The PCR primers were designed according to conserved regions of enolases from plants. The obtained cDNA amplification product consisted of 1651 bp and encoded a protein of 445 amino-acid residues with a calculated molecular mass of 47.6 kDa. Sequence comparisons revealed high similarities of the Hevea latex enolase to mold enolases that have been identified as important allergens. In addition, the crucial amino-acid residues that participate in the formation of the catalytic site and the Mg2+ binding site of enolases were also conserved. Hevea latex enolase was produced as a recombinant protein in Escherichia coli with an N-terminal hexahistidyl tag, and purified by affinity chromatography. The yield amounted to 110 mg of purified Hev b 9 per litre of bacterial culture. The recombinant allergen bound IgE from latex, as well as mold-allergic patients, in immunoblot and ELISA experiments. The natural enolase was isolated from Hevea latex by (NH4 )2 SO4 precipitation and ion exchange chromatography. The natural and the recombinant (r)Hev b 9 showed equivalent enzymatic activity. Patients’ IgE-antibodies preincubated with rHev b 9 lost their ability to bind to natural (n) Hev b 9, indicating the identity of the B-cell epitopes on both molecules. Cross-reactivity with two enolases from Cladosporium herbarum and Alternaria alternata was determined by inhibition of IgE-binding to these enolases by rHev b 9. Therefore, enolases may represent another class of highly conserved enzymes with allergenic potentials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

IgE-mediated hypersensitivity to latex proteins present in health care products, particularly in latex gloves, has become an important public health problem in recent years. We purified natural Hev b 7, a 43-kDa patatin-like allergen from the latex of Hevea brasiliensis and determined several internal peptide sequences. A heterologous hybridization probe of a patatin gene of potato, to which these peptides could be aligned best, was used to screen a latex cDNA library. The cDNA encoded an acidic protein of 388 amino acids with a molecular mass of 42.9 kDa. The deduced amino acid sequence had 39-42 % identity to patatins from Solanum tuberosum. The purified recombinant Hev b 7 expressed in the yeast Pichia pastoris displayed, similarly to patatins from S. tuberosum, esterase activity. Both natural and recombinant Hev b 7 were recognized by IgE from sera of latex-sensitized allergic individuals. In contrast to patatins from S. tuberosum and Nicotiana tabacum, natural Hev b 7 lacked an N-terminal leader peptide for targeting to the endoplasmatic reticulum and was not glycosylated. These results establish the 43-kDa patatin-like protein as a latex allergen and raise the possibility of different cellular localization and function compared to S. tuberosum patatins. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has evolved into a pandemic infectious disease transmitted by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2). Allergists and other healthcare providers (HCPs) in the field of allergies and associated airway diseases are on the front line, taking care of patients potentially infected with SARS-CoV-2. Hence, strategies and practices to minimize risks of infection for both HCPs and treated patients have to be developed and followed by allergy clinics., Method: The scientific information on COVID-19 was analysed by a literature search in MEDLINE, PubMed, the National and International Guidelines from the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI), the Cochrane Library, and the internet., Results: Based on the diagnostic and treatment standards developed by EAACI, on international information regarding COVID-19, on guidelines of the World Health Organization (WHO) and other international organizations, and on previous experience, a panel of experts including clinicians, psychologists, IT experts, and basic scientists along with EAACI and the "Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA)" initiative have developed recommendations for the optimal management of allergy clinics during the current COVID-19 pandemic. These recommendations are grouped into nine sections on different relevant aspects for the care of patients with allergies., Conclusions: This international Position Paper provides recommendations on operational plans and procedures to maintain high standards in the daily clinical care of allergic patients while ensuring the necessary safety measures in the current COVID-19 pandemic., (© 2020 EAACI and John Wiley and Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd.)