RESUMEN
Compliance with vaccination is linked to its safety. In Italy, a plan to identify people who could be at an increased risk of adverse events (AEs) was defined so they could be vaccinated in a protected setting. We conducted an audit to describe the process of AE risk assessment and occurrence in the Reggio Emilia Province in Italy in people who received any of the four COVID-19 vaccines currently used in Italy. Incidence of AEs was calculated by dose and type of vaccine and type of setting (standard vs. protected). After 182,056 first doses were administered, 521 (0.3%) AEs were reported. Most of the AEs were non-serious (91.4%) and non-allergic (92.7%). The percentage of AEs was similar in both settings: 0.3% in the standard setting and 0.2% in the protected setting. However, the incidence of AEs was higher among those who had an allergist visit than among those who did not (IR 666.7 vs. 124.9). All deaths (1.6/100.000) occurred in standard settings and after the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. The incidence of AEs was lower after the second dose (IR 286.2 vs. 190.3), except for mRNA vaccines, for which it was higher after the second dose (IR 169.8 vs. 251.8). Although vaccination in a protected medical setting could reassure patients with a history of allergies to be vaccinated, allergy history and other anamnestic information is not useful in predicting the risk of COVID-19 vaccine-related AEs in the general population.
RESUMEN
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.