Der zunehmende Einsatz moderner zielgerichteter Therapien führt dazu, dass Dermatologen stetig mit neuartigen kutanen Nebenwirkungen dieser Substanzen konfrontiert werden. Eine rasche Diagnose und Therapie sind notwendig, um die planmäßige Fortführung der onkologischen Therapie zu ermöglichen und eine Beeinträchtigung der Lebensqualität der Patienten zu verhindern. Immuncheckpointund EGFR-Inhibitoren sind häufig eingesetzte zielgerichtete Therapien mit spezifischen kutanen Nebenwirkungsspektren. Exanthematische Hautveränderungen stellen hierbei eine besondere diagnostische Herausforderung dar. Immuncheckpoint-Inhibitoren können vielfältige immunvermittelte kutane Nebenwirkungen hervorrufen; am häufigsten sind dies makulopapulöse, lichenoide oder psoriasiforme Exantheme. Das Auftreten bullöse Autoimmundermatosen und Kollagenose-assoziierter Exantheme ist möglich. Bei atypischen, ausgeprägten oder therapieresistenten exanthematischen Hautveränderungen ist eine dermatologische Abklärung inklusive Hautbiopsie zur genauen Einordnung indiziert. Die Hauptsäule der Therapie stellen topische und systemische Glukokortikoide dar. Unter EGFR-Inhibitor-Therapie sind papulopustulöse Exantheme die häufigste kutane Nebenwirkung, die je nach Substanz bei bis zu 90 % der Patienten innerhalb der ersten beiden Therapiewochen auftreten. Neben topischen Antibiotika und Glukokortikoiden sind systemische Tetrazykline die Therapie der ersten Wahl und können auch prophylaktisch eingesetzt werden.

Introduction: Venom immunotherapy (VIT) is highly effective and the treatment of choice for patients with a history of systemic anaphylactic reactions to a Hymenoptera sting. It has been assumed that VIT protocols with a rapid dose increase during the induction phase are associated with a higher frequency of systemic reactions (SR); however, study data addressing this issue are conflicting. Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the safety of 3 different Hymenoptera VIT protocols (half-day ultra-rush, 3-day rush, 3-week cluster). Methods: This retrospective 2-center study included 143 Hymenoptera venom-allergic patients, who underwent 147 VIT procedures during the years 2015-2018. Twenty cluster, 75 rush, and 52 ultra-rush VIT protocols were performed with honeybee (54 protocols) and wasp (93 protocols) venom. All documented side effects were classified into large local and SR (Ring and Messmer classification). Results: SR were observed during 11 (7.5%) VIT procedures and did not exceed severity grade II. SR occurred more frequently in cluster compared to accelerated protocols. This result was observed for both honeybee (cluster: 25%, rush: 8.7%, and ultra-rush: 15.8%) and wasp VIT (cluster: 12.5%, rush: 0%, and ultra-rush: 6.1%), though the differences were statistically significant only in the wasp VIT subgroup. Honeybee venom elicited more SR than wasp venom (14.8 and 3.2%, respectively, p = 0.01). The risk for SR did not depend on age, sex, concomitant antihypertensive medication, hypertryptasemia, or severity of the index sting reaction. Conclusion: Accelerated VIT protocols, namely, rush and ultra-rush protocols are safe therapeutic options for Hymenoptera venomallergic patients and displayed fewer SR than cluster VIT protocols in our study.

Rapid and reliable fungal identification is crucial to delineate infectious diseases, and to establish appropriate treatment for onychomycosis. Compared to conventional diagnostic methods, molecular techniques are faster and feature higher accuracy in fungal identification. However, in current clinical practice, molecular mycology is not widely available, and its practical applicability is still under discussion. This study summarizes the results of 16,094 consecutive nail specimens with clinical suspicion of onychomycosis. We performed PCR/sequencing on all primary nail specimens for which conventional mycological diagnostics remained inconclusive. In specimens with a positive direct microscopy but negative or contaminated culture, molecular mycology proved superior and specified a fungal agent in 65% (587/898). In 75% (443/587), the identified pathogen was a dermatophyte. Positive cultures for dermatophytes, yeasts and non-dermatophyte molds (NDMs) were concordant with primary-specimen-DNA PCR/sequencing in 83% (10/12), 34% (22/65) and 45% (76/169), respectively. Among NDMs, agreement was high for Fusarium spp. (32/40; 80%), but low for Penicillium spp. (5/25; 20%) and Alternaria spp. (1/20; 5%). This study underlines the improvement in diagnostic yield by fungal primary-specimen-DNA PCR/sequencing in the event of a negative or contaminated culture, as well as its significance for the diagnosis of dermatophyte and non-dermatophyte onychomycosis. Molecular mycology methods like PCR and DNA sequencing should complement conventional diagnostics in cases of equivocal findings, suspected NDM onychomycosis or treatment-resistant nail pathologies.

No abstract