The impact of dupilumab treatment on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2-coronavirus disease 2019 antibody responses in patients with atopic dermatitis

A systematic review and expert Delphi Consensus recommendation on the use of vaccines in patients receiving dupilumab: A position paper of the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology

BACKGROUND

Dupilumab is a monoclonal antibody that targets the interleukin (IL)-4 receptor alpha subunit, thus blocking the effects of IL-4 and IL-13, and has shown efficacy in treating various conditions including asthma, atopic dermatitis, eosinophilic esophagitis, and others. Because of its immune modulatory effects, clinical trials that studied dupilumab did not allow patients to receive live vaccines during the clinical trials because of an abundance of caution, and thus package inserts recommend that patients who are being treated with dupilumab should avoid live vaccines. Because dupilumab is now approved for use in patients from 6 months of age for the treatment of atopic dermatitis, this reported contraindication is now posing a clinical dilemma for patients and clinicians.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review of literature on the safety and efficacy of vaccinations in patients who are receiving dupilumab and to provide expert guidance on the use of vaccines in patients who are receiving dupilumab.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was performed, and an expert Delphi Panel was assembled.

RESULTS

The available literature on patients who received vaccinations while using dupilumab overall suggests that live vaccines are safe and that the vaccine efficacy, in general, is not affected by dupilumab. The expert Delphi panel agreed that the use of vaccines in patients receiving dupilumab was likely safe and effective.

CONCLUSION

Vaccines (including live vaccines) can be administered to patients receiving dupilumab in a shared decision-making capacity.

Ally, adversary, or arbitrator? The context-dependent role of eosinophils in vaccination for respiratory viruses and subsequent breakthrough infections

Eosinophils are a critical type of immune cell and central players in type 2 immunity. Existing literature suggests that eosinophils also can play a role in host antiviral responses, typically type 1 immune events, against multiple respiratory viruses, both directly through release of antiviral mediators and indirectly through activation of other effector cell types. One way to prime host immune responses toward effective antiviral responses is through vaccination, where typically a type 1-skewed immunity is desirable in the context of intracellular pathogens like respiratory viruses. In the realm of breakthrough respiratory viral infection in vaccinated hosts, an event in which virus can still establish productive infection despite preexisting immunity, eosinophils are most prominently known for their link to vaccine-associated enhanced respiratory disease upon natural respiratory syncytial virus infection. This was observed in a pediatric cohort during the 1960s following vaccination with formalin-inactivated respiratory syncytial virus. More recent research has unveiled additional roles of the eosinophil in respiratory viral infection and breakthrough infection. The specific contribution of eosinophils to the quality of vaccine responses, vaccine efficacy, and antiviral responses to infection in vaccinated hosts remains largely unexplored, especially regarding their potential roles in protection. On the basis of current findings, we will speculate upon the suggested function of eosinophils and consider the many potential ways by which eosinophils may exert protective and pathological effects in breakthrough infections. We will also discuss how to balance vaccine efficacy with eosinophil-related risks, as well as the use of eosinophils and their products as potential biomarkers of vaccine efficacy or adverse events.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on adults and children with atopic dermatitis and food allergy: Systematic review

Background

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused significant disruptions to health care services and health impacts on patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) and/or food allergy (FA).

Objective

We evaluated the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and disease on AD/FA patients.

Methods

A comprehensive systematic literature search was conducted from December 2019 to 2022. Screening and data extraction were done following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, and the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool, or MMAT, was used to assess risk of bias.

Results

In total, 159 studies were included. Five of 7 studies reported no significant changes in overall incidence or prevalence of AD during the pandemic, although some studies noted an increase in the elderly and infants. Telehealth served as an effective alternative to face-to-face consultations, with mixed levels of patient and provider satisfaction. Dissatisfaction was most marked in patients with more severe disease, who thought that their disease was inadequately managed through telemedicine. Higher levels of general anxiety were recorded in both AD/FA patients and caregivers, and it was more pronounced in patients with severe disease. Most studies reported no significant differences in postvaccination adverse effects in AD patients; however, results were more varied in FA patients.

Conclusion

Our review identified the impact of COVID-19 pandemic- and disease-driven changes on AD/FA patients. Telemedicine is uniquely suited to manage atopic diseases, and hybrid care may be a suitable approach even in the postpandemic era. COVID-19 vaccines and biologics can be safely administered to patients with atopic diseases, with appropriate patient education to ensure continued care for high-risk patients.

A novel protocol for de-isolating moderately and severely immunocompromised COVID-19 patients

Immunocompromised coronavirus disease 2019 patients are at a higher risk of prolonged viral shedding than immunocompetent patients. However, as of August 2023, there is no clear international standard for de-isolating vulnerable patients. A comprehensive assessment is advisable based on various information, such as the increase in immune escape of specific mutant strains as well as the patient's innate immunity and vaccination status; therefore, consultation with an infectious disease specialist is recommended. The patient population defined as moderately or severely immunocompromised by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control is significantly broad. A boundary between the two remains to be delineated, and the existing protocols allow the release of patients based on their symptoms alone. This may lead to an unnecessary extension or premature termination of isolation. In this study, we searched for studies, particularly those that used real-world data, discussed the results with experts in our hospital, and proposed new isolation criteria based on both testing and clinical symptoms. We classified patients into three groups namely severely, moderately, and mildly immunocompromised, defined by their background and the administration of immunosuppressive drugs. A separate flowchart for ending isolation is indicated for each group. This standard may be a useful support material, especially for non-specialists. Nevertheless, our criteria must be revised and added continuously; accumulating real-world data to support revision of and addition to the list is becoming increasingly important.

Recent developments in the immunopathology of COVID-19

There has been an important change in the clinical characteristics and immune profile of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients during the pandemic thanks to the extensive vaccination programs. Here, we highlight recent studies on COVID-19, from the clinical and immunological characteristics to the protective and risk factors for severity and mortality of COVID-19. The efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines and potential allergic reactions after administration are also discussed. The occurrence of new variants of concerns such as Omicron BA.2, BA.4, and BA.5 and the global administration of COVID-19 vaccines have changed the clinical scenario of COVID-19. Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) may cause severe and heterogeneous disease but with a lower mortality rate. Perturbations in immunity of T cells, B cells, and mast cells, as well as autoantibodies and metabolic reprogramming may contribute to the long-term symptoms of COVID-19. There is conflicting evidence about whether atopic diseases, such as allergic asthma and rhinitis, are associated with a lower susceptibility and better outcomes of COVID-19. At the beginning of pandemic, the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) developed guidelines that provided timely information for the management of allergic diseases and preventive measures to reduce transmission in the allergic clinics. The global distribution of COVID-19 vaccines and emerging severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants with reduced pathogenic potential dramatically decreased the morbidity, severity, and mortality of COVID-19. Nevertheless, breakthrough infection remains a challenge for disease control. Hypersensitivity reactions (HSR) to COVID-19 vaccines are low compared to other vaccines, and these were addressed in EAACI statements that provided indications for the management of allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis to COVID-19 vaccines. We have gained a depth knowledge and experience in the over 2 years since the start of the pandemic, and yet a full eradication of SARS-CoV-2 is not on the horizon. Novel strategies are warranted to prevent severe disease in high-risk groups, the development of MIS-C and long COVID-19.

Management of patients with allergic diseases in the era of COVID-19

In the early days of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, allergic diseases, especially asthma, were considered to be risk factors for severe COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and death. These concerns stemmed from the idea that individuals with allergic diseases are generally more susceptible to respiratory virus infections, which are major causes of exacerbation of allergic diseases. However, epidemiologic data with mechanistic studies showed that the associations between severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and clinical outcomes of allergic diseases are complex and affected by diverse factors such as allergic disease severity, phenotypes, and control status with current medications. In addition, children generally have less severe clinical outcomes of COVID-19 than those of adults, which complicates the association between allergic diseases and COVID-19-related outcomes among them. The present review summarizes the potential association between allergic diseases and COVID-19-related outcomes and discusses the factors requiring consideration. The findings viewed herein will aid the management of allergic diseases in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection and the establishment of medical polices for managing patients with allergic diseases.

Dupilumab efficacy and safety in patients with moderate to severe asthma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Dupilumab is a human monoclonal antibody directed against the alpha subunit of the interleukin-4 receptor and inhibits the signaling of IL-4 and IL-13. It is approved for treating asthma and other type-2 inflammatory diseases. There is a conflict in the literature regarding the safety and efficacy of dupilumab. Thus, we aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of dupilumab in patients with moderate to severe asthma. Methods: Six databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane library, and clinicaltrials.gov registry) were searched until January 2022. We included randomized controlled trials that compared dupilumab with the placebo in moderate to severe asthma patients. We extracted the data at 12 and 24 weeks and analyzed them using review manager 5.4. Findings: Thirteen trials were included. Dupilumab significantly improved the forced expiratory volume in 1 s, asthma control questionnaire score, the fraction of exhaled nitric oxide level, and immunoglobulin E level at 12 and 24 weeks (p < 0.05). However, it was associated with increased blood eosinophils at 12 and 24 weeks. Dupilumab was generally a safe agent for asthmatic patients. It showed no significant difference compared with the placebo regarding most adverse events. Conclusion: Dupilumab improves pulmonary function and reduces local and systemic inflammatory markers with minimal adverse events in patients with moderate to severe asthma.