No abstract

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic, inflammatory skin disorder that most frequently occurs in children, but it can also affect adults. Even though most AD cases can be managed with topical treatments, moderate‐to‐severe forms require systemic therapies. Dupilumab is the first human monoclonal antibody approved for the treatment of AD. Its action is through IL‐4 receptor alpha subunit inhibition, thus blocking IL‐4 and IL‐13 signaling pathways. It has been shown to be an effective, well‐tolerated therapy for AD, as well as for asthma, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP), and eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). However, an increasing incidence of dupilumab‐induced ocular surface disease (DIOSD) has been reported in patients treated with dupilumab, as compared to placebo. The aim of this study was to summarize scientific data regarding DIOSD in AD patients treated with dupilumab. A search of PubMed and clinicaltrials.gov databases was performed. There was no limit to study design. All AD cases were moderate‐to‐severe. DIOSD was either dermatologist‐, allergist‐, or ophthalmologist‐assessed. Evidence shows that DIOSD occurs most frequently in patients with atopic dermatitis and not in other skin conditions, neither in patients with asthma, CRSwNP, nor EoE who are on dupilumab treatment. Further studies are warranted in order to establish a causal relationship between dupilumab and ocular surface disease. Nevertheless, ophthalmological evaluations prior to dupilumab initiation can benefit AD patients with previous ocular pathology or current ocular symptomatology. Also, patch testing for ocular allergic contact dermatitis might be advantageous in patients with a history of allergic conjunctivitis. Furthermore, TARC, IgE, and circulating eosinophils levels might be important biomarkers for a baseline assessment of future candidates to dupilumab treatment. However, TARC measurements should be resumed for research purposes only.

Risankizumab has been recently approved for moderate‐to‐severe plaque psoriasis; however, real‐life studies are scarce. Analysis of possible predictor factors of treatment response are limited to body mass index (BMI) and previous biologic experience. Our objectives were to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of Risankizumab and to investigate on possible predictor factors response. We retrospectively analyzed 166 patients from two centers in Italy who undergone Risankizumab for psoriasis. The proportion of patients achieving a 100%, 90%, 75% of improvement in Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI) and PASI <3 were collected at weeks 16, 28, 40, and 52. Study population was analyzed in subgroups to investigate possible predictors of response to Risankizumab since week 40. At the time of analysis 165, 103, 30, and 11 patients had completed 16, 28, 40, and 52 weeks of treatment, respectively. The mean PASI score decreased from 12.5 ± 5.1 at baseline to 1.9 ± 2.4 at week 16. Similar reductions were observed when considering PASI <3, PASI 75, PASI 90, and PASI 100. Previous biologics failure, different smoking habits, obesity, and joint involvement resulted in a lower response to risankizumab. In particular, significant differences in mean PASI at any time‐points was observed between psoriatic arthritis (PSA) and non‐PSA patients: 2.7 versus 1.7 (p = 0.036), 1.9 versus 0.4 (p = 0.006), and 4.1 versus 0.5 (p = 0.016) at 16, 28, and 40 weeks, respectively. No difference in response to risankizumab occurred in the case of involvement of difficult‐to‐treat areas. In this population, Risankizumab was effective and safe. Smoking habits, joint involvement, obese status, and previous biologic experience may negatively affect treatment response, while difficult body sites involvement have minor impact.

Abstract

To date, over 250 million people have been reportedly infected by COVID‐19 disease, which has spread across the globe and led to approximately 5.1 million fatalities. To prevent both COVID‐19 and viral transmission, DNA‐based/RNA‐based vaccines, non‐replicating viral vector vaccines, and inactivated vaccines have been recently developed. However, a precise clinical and histological characterization of SARS‐CoV‐2 vaccine‐related dermatological manifestations is still lacking. A systematic review of 229 articles was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, in order to provide an extensive overview of SARS‐CoV‐2 vaccine‐related skin manifestations. Data on demographics, number of reported cases with cutaneous involvement, vaccine, and rash type (morphology) were extracted from articles and summarized. A total of 5941 SARS‐CoV‐2 vaccine‐related dermatological manifestations were gathered. Local injection‐site reactions were the most frequently observed, followed by rash/unspecified cutaneous eruption, urticarial rashes, angioedema, herpes zoster, morbilliform/maculopapular/erythematous macular eruption, pityriasis rosea and pityriasis rosea‐like eruptions, and other less common dermatological manifestations. Flares of pre‐existing dermatological conditions were also reported. Cutaneous adverse reactions following SARS‐CoV‐2 vaccine administration seem to be heterogeneous, rather infrequent, and not life‐threatening. Vaccinated patients should be monitored for skin manifestations, and dermatological evaluation should be offered, when needed.