External enablers in existing organizations: Emergence, novelty, and persistence of entrepreneurial initiatives

Research Summary: There is growing consensus that exogenous environmental changes can affect entrepreneurship. The external enabler framework, which provides the structures and terminology to analyze these enabling effects, has typically focused on new venture creation. In an attempt to extend the external enabler framework to corporate entrepreneurship and innovation, our longitudinal multiple-case study explores how environmental changes enable entrepreneurial initiatives in existing organizations. Our findings contribute to the external enabler framework, corporate entrepreneurship, and innovation literature by identifying new conceptual tools to understand the enabling effect of environmental change for the emergence, novelty, and persistence of entrepreneurial initiatives in existing organizations. Managerial Summary: We studied how the Covid-19 pandemic enabled the initiation and continuation of entrepreneurial activities. Our study of eight small US-based news companies shows that some entrepreneurial initiatives emerged as these organizations redirected their course of action toward new initiatives enabled by the changes in the external environment. Notably, the entrepreneurial initiatives that were new-to-the-industry originated from ideas that were already available in some form within the organization but were not in use until the pandemic gave them a second life. Furthermore, the continuation of these initiatives depended on the persistence of the changes in the environment and on the low maintenance requirements of these initiatives in terms of time, effort, and resources. © 2023 The Authors. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Strategic Management Society.

HYPEREOSINOPHILIC SYNDROME FOLLOWING the BNT162B2 (BIONTECH/PFIZER) VACCINATION

Background: Some reports of small vessel vasculitis following nSARS-CoV2 vaccination are reported in the literature (1, 2). Objectives: We purpose to report the case of small-medium vessel vasculitis after BNT162b2 (BioNTech/Pfzer) vaccination. Methods: We present the case of a 48 years old man with an unremarkable history who underwent BNT162b2 vaccination. Results: Five days after the frst shot of BNT162b2 vaccine, the patient refer the onset of left inguinal adenopathy, and erythematous dermatitis of the trunk. Ultrasound of the groin found increase bilateral inguinal lymph nodes with reactive characters. Contextually, erythematous, itchy and painful nodular lesions appear in the lower and upper limbs as well as acrocyanosis and paresthesia in the right hand and foot. The tests performed showed thrombocytopenia and eosinophilia. While, CRP, search for fecal parasites, pANCA, cANCA, ANA, RAST test, serum tryptase were all absent. Haematological evaluation, bone marrow biopsy, karyotype and molecular biology (FIP1L1/PDGFRa), were performed, all results negative. The patient was admitted in Internal Medicine ward for worsening of skin lesions and of acrocyanosis with gangrenous lesions at the tips of the fourth fnger of the right hand. An angio-CT showed an occlusion of the right ulnar artery. At electromyography an axonal sensory neuropathy was found. The skin biopsy showed fbrinoid necrosis of venules of the superfcial vascular plexus associated with numerous eosinophils, lymphocytes and karyorrhetic debris (Figure 1). High-resolution CT scan described diffuse minimal accentuation of the interstitial texture with micronodular aspects and some ground glass appearance. The diagnosis of hypereosinophilic syndrome was made. Therapy with Methylprednisolone 500 mg/daily for 3 days then Prednisone 1 mg/kg daily in association with IL-5 inhibitor (mepolizumab) with good clinical response, in addition to anticoagulation with warfarin was started. Conclusion: To our knowledge this might be the frst case of (HES) following COVID vaccine. As our experience, due to the short commercialization of anti-nSARs-CoV2 vaccines, is limited further studies are needed to explore the possible effect on small-medium vessels.

Risk-mitigating behaviours in people with inflammatory skin and joint disease during the COVID-19 pandemic differ by treatment type: a cross-sectional patient survey.

BACKGROUND: Registry data suggest that people with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) receiving targeted systemic therapies have fewer adverse coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcomes compared with patients receiving no systemic treatments. OBJECTIVES: We used international patient survey data to explore the hypothesis that greater risk-mitigating behaviour in those receiving targeted therapies may account, at least in part, for this observation. METHODS: Online surveys were completed by individuals with psoriasis (globally) or rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) (UK only) between 4 May and 7 September 2020. We used multiple logistic regression to assess the association between treatment type and risk-mitigating behaviour, adjusting for clinical and demographic characteristics. We characterized international variation in a mixed-effects model. RESULTS: Of 3720 participants (2869 psoriasis, 851 RMDs) from 74 countries, 2262 (60·8%) reported the most stringent risk-mitigating behaviour (classified here under the umbrella term 'shielding'). A greater proportion of those receiving targeted therapies (biologics and Janus Kinase inhibitors) reported shielding compared with those receiving no systemic therapy [adjusted odds ratio (OR) 1·63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1·35-1·97]. The association between targeted therapy and shielding was preserved when standard systemic therapy was used as the reference group (OR 1·39, 95% CI 1·23-1·56). Shielding was associated with established risk factors for severe COVID-19 [male sex (OR 1·14, 95% CI 1·05-1·24), obesity (OR 1·37, 95% CI 1·23-1·54), comorbidity burden (OR 1·43, 95% CI 1·15-1·78)], a primary indication of RMDs (OR 1·37, 95% CI 1·27-1·48) and a positive anxiety or depression screen (OR 1·57, 95% CI 1·36-1·80). Modest differences in the proportion shielding were observed across nations. CONCLUSIONS: Greater risk-mitigating behaviour among people with IMIDs receiving targeted therapies may contribute to the reported lower risk of adverse COVID-19 outcomes. The behaviour variation across treatment groups, IMIDs and nations reinforces the need for clear evidence-based patient communication on risk-mitigation strategies and may help inform updated public health guidelines as the pandemic continues.

Cutaneous manifestations of SARS-CoV-2 infection: a clinical update.

On 11 March 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) has declared the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) a global pandemic, caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2 virus). A consistent number of case reports and clinical series have been already published describing a complex spectrum of skin manifestations associated with the SARS-CoV-2 infection. We carried out a review of the English-language literature up to 20 May 2020, reporting original cases or case series of the cutaneous manifestations of SARS-CoV-2 virus infection. The following databases were consulted: PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar and ResearchGate. The search of papers was conducted by using the key term 'COVID-19' or 'SARS-CoV-2' or 'coronavirus' combined with each of the following: 'skin', 'cutaneous', 'dermatologic' or 'dermatology', 'manifestation', 'lesions', or 'rash'. The patterns of dermatological manifestations associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection could be classified into four categories: exanthema (varicella-like, papulo-vesicular and morbilliform rash), vascular (chilblain-like, purpuric/petechial and livedoid lesions), urticarial and acro-papular eruption. Lastly, other skin manifestations to be considered are the cutaneous adverse reactions to the drugs prescribed for the treatment of COVID-19. Whether SARS-CoV-2 infection can directly cause a worsening of chronic inflammatory diseases such as psoriasis or atopic dermatitis remains to be determined. Dermatology's outlook in the COVID-19 pandemic is multidimensional.

Dermatologists and SARS-CoV-2: the impact of the pandemic on daily practice.

Since the first case of 'pneumonia of unknown aetiology' was diagnosed at the Wuhan Jinyintan Hospital in China on 30 December 2019, what was recognized thereafter as 'severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2' (SARS-CoV-2) has spread over the four continents, causing the respiratory manifestations of coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) and satisfying the epidemiological criteria for a label of 'pandemic'. The ongoing SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is having a huge impact on dermatological practice including the marked reduction of face-to-face consultations in favour of teledermatology, the uncertainties concerning the outcome of COVID-19 infection in patients with common inflammatory disorders such as psoriasis or atopic dermatitis receiving immunosuppressive/immunomodulating systemic therapies; the direct involvement of dermatologists in COVID-19 care for patient assistance and new research needs to be addressed. It is not known yet if skin lesions and derangement of the skin barrier could make it easier for SARS-CoV-2 to transmit via indirect contact; it remains to be defined if specific mucosal or skin lesions are associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection, although some unpublished observations indicate the occurrence of a transient varicelliform exanthema during the early phase of the infection. SARS-CoV-2 is a new pathogen for humans that is highly contagious, can spread quickly, and is capable of causing enormous health, economic and societal impacts in any setting. The consequences may continue long after the pandemic resolves, and new management modalities for dermatology may originate from the COVID-19 disaster. Learning from experience may help to cope with future major societal changes.