Effect of immunosuppressive drugs in immune-mediated inflammatory disease during the coronavirus pandemic

Special Issue "Clinical Consequences of COVID-19": Taking a Look at Complexity

The consequences of SARS-CoV-2 infection are far from being fully understood or accounted for [...].

Mucocutaneous presentations of consultant critical and non-critical cases of admitted COVID-19 patients, outpatients, and vaccine-associated dermatoses: a clinical atlas and a large original study of two general COVID-19 centers from Iran

Rapid and proper diagnosis of mucocutaneous presentations of COVID-19 which in many cases are representing internal organ damage is a key way to better approach these patients, and it could be even lifesaving. In this original study, we reported consultant critical and non-critical cases of admitted COVID-19 patients and some interesting outpatient cases for 14 months, and some newly encountered vaccine-associated dermatoses. We presented 121 cases divided into 12 categories; all had full multi-aspects photographs attached as an atlas to a Supplementary File. These categories were:1- Generalized papulopustular eruptions (3 patients), 2- Erythroderma (4 patients), 3- Maculopapular lesions(16 patients), 4- Mucosal lesions (8 patients), 5- Urticarial lesions and angioedema (16 patients), 6- Vascular injuries (22 patients), 7- Vesiculobullous lesions (12 patients), 8- The specific new onset of mucocutaneous presentations or aggravation of any especial previous dermatoses (9 patients), 9- Nail changes (3 patients), 10- Hair loss (2 patients), 11- Non-specific mucocutaneous problems (16 patients) and 12-Vaccine-associated dermatoses (10 patients).In the pandemic, if we countered with extensive mucocutaneous lesions with vascular components or vesiculobullous erosive lesions in association with any cutaneous rash that could be an alarming sign of a probable life-threatening systemic event, we would need to approach them as soon as possible.

Dermatology Publications on COVID-19 during the First Pandemic Year: Creativity or Opportunism?

Introduction: Dermatologists had to face several challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic. In this scenario, a large amount of data has been produced and published. Objectives: We present a literature analysis of publications on COVID-19 in the dermatology field in the first year of the pandemic. Methods: The research was carried out by searching the PubMed database using keywords related to “COVID-19” combined with the keyword “Dermatology” in the “affiliation” search field and collecting articles published from February 2020 to December 2020. Results: A total of 816 publications from 57 countries were retrieved. Overall, publications increased notably along the timespan considered in this study and appeared to be closely linked to pandemic progression in different countries. In addition, article types (i.e., commentaries, case reports, original research) appeared to be strictly influenced by the pandemic’s progression. However, the number and category of these publications may raise questions regarding the scientific relevance of the messages reported. Conclusions: Our analysis provides a descriptive quantitative analysis and suggests that publications do not always respond to real scientific needs but are sometimes linked to a need/opportunity for publication.

Response to Vaccines in Patients with Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases: A Narrative Review

Patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs), such as rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease, are at increased risk of infection. International guidelines recommend vaccination to limit this risk of infection, although live attenuated vaccines are contraindicated once immunosuppressive therapy has begun. Biologic therapies used to treat IMIDs target the immune system to stop chronic pathogenic process but may also attenuate the protective immune response to vaccines. Here, we review the current knowledge regarding vaccine responses in IMID patients receiving treatment with biologic therapies, with a focus on the interleukin (IL)-12/23 inhibitors. B cell-depleting therapies, such as rituximab, strongly impair vaccines immunogenicity, and tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors and the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen-4 (CTLA-4) fusion protein abatacept are also associated with attenuated antibody responses, which are further diminished in patients taking concomitant immunosuppressants. On the other hand, integrin, IL-6, IL-12/23, IL-17, and B-cell activating factor (BAFF) inhibitors do not appear to affect the immune response to several vaccines evaluated. Importantly, treatment with biologic therapies in IMID patients is not associated with an increased risk of infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) or developing severe disease. However, the efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines on IMID patients may be reduced compared with healthy individuals. The impact of biologic therapies on the response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines seems to replicate what has been described for other vaccines. SARS-CoV-2 vaccination appears to be safe and well tolerated in IMID patients. Attenuated but, in general, still protective responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in the context of certain therapies warrant current recommendations for a third primary dose in IMID patients treated with immunosuppressive drugs.

Management of patients with atopic dermatitis undergoing systemic therapy during COVID-19 pandemic in Italy: Data from the DA-COVID-19 registry

Background

Few and small studies have described the management of immunomodulant/immunosuppressive therapies or phototherapy in atopic dermatitis (AD) patients during coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic.

Methods

A national registry, named DA‐COVID‐19 and involving 35 Italian dermatology units, was established in order to evaluate the impact of COVID‐19 pandemic on the management of adult AD patients treated with systemic immunomodulant/immunosuppressive medications or phototherapy. Demographic and clinical data were obtained at different timepoints by teledermatology during COVID‐19 pandemic, when regular visits were not allowed due to sanitary restrictions. Disease severity was assessed by both physician‐ and patient‐reported assessment scores evaluating itch intensity, sleep disturbances, and AD severity.

Results

A total of 1831 patients were included, with 1580/1831 (86.3%) continuing therapy during pandemic. Most patients were treated with dupilumab (86.1%, 1576/1831) that was interrupted in only 9.9% (156/1576) of cases, while systemic immunosuppressive compounds were more frequently withdrawn. Treatment interruption was due to decision of the patient, general practitioner, or dermatologist in 39.9% (114/286), 5.6% (16/286), and 30.1% (86/286) of cases, respectively. Fear of increased susceptibility to SARS‐CoV‐2 infection (24.8%, 71/286) was one of the main causes of interruption. Sixteen patients (0.9%) resulted positive to SARS‐CoV‐2 infection; 3 of them (0.2%) were hospitalized but no cases of COVID‐related death occurred.

Conclusions

Most AD patients continued systemic treatments during COVID pandemic and lockdown period, without high impact on disease control, particularly dupilumab‐treated patients.