Chronic hand eczema in Europe:Patient experiences and perspectives (CHEPEP) in qualitative interviews

Background: Chronic hand eczema (CHE) is a very common skin disease among the European population. It causes itch and pain and, in more severe cases, seriously impairs hand functioning at work and in private life. Objectives: To explore perspectives of people with lived experience on CHE-related problems, wishes and goals. Methods: Following a qualitative approach, we conducted topic-guided interviews in five European countries and applied template analysis to identify recurrent themes among patients with CHE. Results: We interviewed 60 patients in seven outpatient dermatological and occupational medicine clinics in Croatia, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands and Spain. Five main themes were identified: (1) knowledge about the disease and its course, (2) preventive behaviour, (3) hand eczema therapy, (4) impact on everyday life and (5) attitudes towards CHE and healthcare. Participants did not feel well informed about CHE, especially about causes, triggers and treatment options. Preventive measures were experienced as more or less effective but also cumbersome. Experiences with therapy were diverse. Treatment satisfaction depended on the results and on the perceived support from the treatment teams. Participants found it important to be taken seriously, to receive practical advice, to try out additional treatments or examinations, find new hope and have occupational perspectives. They wished that others could better understand the physical and emotional burden of CHE. Patient support groups were not mentioned. Participants found it important to learn to take care of themselves and accept life with CHE. Conclusions: Due to its annoying symptoms, high visibility and impaired functioning at work and in private life, CHE has a high emotional and social impact. Some people may require support to learn coping with CHE and its prevention. Patients wish for information about causes and triggers. They value physicians who listen to them and keep looking for solutions.</p

Risk factors for systemic reactions in typical cold urticaria: Results from the COLD-CE study

Background: Cold urticaria (ColdU), that is, the occurrence of wheals or angioedema in response to cold exposure, is classified into typical and atypical forms. The diagnosis of typical ColdU relies on whealing in response to local cold stimulation testing (CST). It can also manifest with cold-induced anaphylaxis (ColdA). We aimed to determine risk factors for ColdA in typical ColdU. Methods: An international, cross-sectional study COLD-CE was carried out at 32 urticaria centers of reference and excellence (UCAREs). Detailed history was taken and CST with an ice cube and/or TempTest® performed. ColdA was defined as an acute cold-induced involvement of the skin and/or visible mucosal tissue and at least one of: cardiovascular manifestations, difficulty breathing, or gastrointestinal symptoms. Results: Of 551 ColdU patients, 75% (n = 412) had a positive CST and ColdA occurred in 37% (n = 151) of the latter. Cold-induced generalized wheals, angioedema, acral swelling, oropharyngeal/laryngeal symptoms, and itch of earlobes were identified as signs/symptoms of severe disease. ColdA was most commonly provoked by complete cold water immersion and ColdA caused by cold air was more common in countries with a warmer climate. Ten percent (n = 40) of typical ColdU patients had a concomitant chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU). They had a lower frequency of ColdA than those without CSU (4% vs. 39%, p =.003). We identified the following risk factors for cardiovascular manifestations: previous systemic reaction to a Hymenoptera sting, angioedema, oropharyngeal/laryngeal symptoms, and itchy earlobes. Conclusion: ColdA is common in typical ColdU. High-risk patients require education about their condition and how to use an adrenaline autoinjector

Risk factors for systemic reactions in typical cold urticaria: Results from the COLD-CE study

Background: Cold urticaria (ColdU), that is, the occurrence of wheals or angioedema in response to cold exposure, is classified into typical and atypical forms. The diagnosis of typical ColdU relies on whealing in response to local cold stimulation testing (CST). It can also manifest with cold-induced anaphylaxis (ColdA). We aimed to determine risk factors for ColdA in typical ColdU. Methods: An international, cross-sectional study COLD-CE was carried out at 32 urticaria centers of reference and excellence (UCAREs). Detailed history was taken and CST with an ice cube and/or TempTest® performed. ColdA was defined as an acute cold-induced involvement of the skin and/or visible mucosal tissue and at least one of: cardiovascular manifestations, difficulty breathing, or gastrointestinal symptoms. Results: Of 551 ColdU patients, 75% (n = 412) had a positive CST and ColdA occurred in 37% (n = 151) of the latter. Cold-induced generalized wheals, angioedema, acral swelling, oropharyngeal/laryngeal symptoms, and itch of earlobes were identified as signs/symptoms of severe disease. ColdA was most commonly provoked by complete cold water immersion and ColdA caused by cold air was more common in countries with a warmer climate. Ten percent (n = 40) of typical ColdU patients had a concomitant chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU). They had a lower frequency of ColdA than those without CSU (4% vs. 39%, p =.003). We identified the following risk factors for cardiovascular manifestations: previous systemic reaction to a Hymenoptera sting, angioedema, oropharyngeal/laryngeal symptoms, and itchy earlobes. Conclusion: ColdA is common in typical ColdU. High-risk patients require education about their condition and how to use an adrenaline autoinjector. © 2021 The Authors. Allergy published by European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd

Cutaneous reactions after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination: a cross-sectional Spanish nationwide study of 405 cases.

Cutaneous reactions after severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines are poorly characterized. To describe and classify cutaneous reactions after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. A nationwide Spanish cross-sectional study was conducted. We included patients with cutaneous reactions within 21 days of any dose of the approved vaccines at the time of the study. After a face-to-face visit with a dermatologist, information on cutaneous reactions was collected via an online professional survey and clinical photographs were sent by email. Investigators searched for consensus on clinical patterns and classification. From 16 February to 15 May 2021, we collected 405 reactions after vaccination with the BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech; 40·2%), mRNA-1273 (Moderna; 36·3%) and AZD1222 (AstraZeneca; 23·5%) vaccines. Mean patient age was 50·7 years and 80·2% were female. Cutaneous reactions were classified as injection site ('COVID arm', 32·1%), urticaria (14·6%), morbilliform (8·9%), papulovesicular (6·4%), pityriasis rosea-like (4·9%) and purpuric (4%) reactions. Varicella zoster and herpes simplex virus reactivations accounted for 13·8% of reactions. The COVID arm was almost exclusive to women (95·4%). The most reported reactions in each vaccine group were COVID arm (mRNA-1273, Moderna, 61·9%), varicella zoster virus reactivation (BNT162b2, Pfizer-BioNTech, 17·2%) and urticaria (AZD1222, AstraZeneca, 21·1%). Most reactions to the mRNA-1273 (Moderna) vaccine were described in women (90·5%). Eighty reactions (21%) were classified as severe/very severe and 81% required treatment. Cutaneous reactions after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination are heterogeneous. Most are mild-to-moderate and self-limiting, although severe/very severe reactions are reported. Knowledge of these reactions during mass vaccination may help healthcare professionals and reassure patients