Aim: The 4th Davos Declaration, convened during the Global Allergy Forum (GAF) in Davos, aimed to elevate patient care for patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) by uniting experts and stakeholders. The forum addressed the high prevalence of AD, with a strategic focus on advancing research, treatment, and management to meet the evolving challenges in the field. Methods: This multidisciplinary forum brought together top leaders from research, clinical practice, policy, and patient advocacy to discuss the critical aspects of AD, including neuroimmunology, environmental factors, comorbidities, and breakthroughs in prevention, diagnosis, and treatment. The discussions were geared towards fostering a collaborative approach to integrate these advancements into practical, patient-centric care. Results The forum underlined the mounting burden of AD, attributing it to significant environmental and lifestyle changes. It acknowledged the progress in understanding AD and in developing targeted therapies but recognized a gap in translating these innovations into clinical practice. Emphasis was placed on the need for enhanced awareness, education, and stakeholder engagement to address this gap effectively and to consider environmental and lifestyle factors in a comprehensive disease management strategy. Conclusion: The 4th Davos Declaration marks a significant milestone in the journey to improve care for people with AD. By promoting a holistic approach that combines research, education, and clinical application, the Forum sets a roadmap for stakeholders to work together to improve patient outcomes in AD, reflecting a commitment to adapt and respond to the dynamic challenges of AD in a changing world.

Anna Andersson

and 11 more

Background: Atopic dermatitis (AD) endotypes differ with ethnicity. We examined the skin microbiota, cytokine-, and lipid-profiles in Greenlandic Inuit and Danish children with AD. Methods: 25 Inuit children with AD and 25 Inuit control children were clinically examined and compared to previously collected data from 25 Danish children with AD. Skin tape strips and skin swabs were collected from lesional and non-lesional skin. Levels of cutaneous immune biomarkers, free sphingoid bases and their (glycosyl)ceramides were analyzed. Skin swabs were analyzed with 16S rRNA and tuf gene for characterization of bacterial species communities. Results: Bacterial β-diversity was significantly different between Inuit and Danish AD skin, in both lesional (p<0.001) and non-lesional (p<0.001) AD skin, and there was a higher relative abundance of Staphylococcus aureus in Danish compared to Inuit lesional (53% vs. 8%, p<0.01) and non-lesional skin (55% vs. 5%, p<0.001). Danish AD children had a higher α-diversity than Inuit children in non-lesional ( p<0.05) but not in lesional skin. Significantly higher levels of type 2 immunity cytokine interleukin (IL)-4 (p<0.05) and IL-5 (p<0.01) were identified in Inuit compared to Danish AD children. In contrast, IL-33 (p<0.01) was higher in Danish lesional and non-lesional AD skin. Higher levels of long-chain glucosylceramide (GlcCER)[S](d26:1) were found in lesional ( p<0.001) and non-lesional ( p<0.001) Inuit skin compared with Danish AD skin. NMF levels were similar in Inuit and Danish AD skin. Conclusion: Skin microbiota, cytokine and lipid composition differed significantly between Inuit and Danish children with AD and showed a stronger type 2 immune signature in Inuit children.
Virus infections and T cell-mediated drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHR) can influence each other. In most instances, systemic virus infections appear first. They may prime the reactivity to drugs in two ways: First, by virus-induced second signals: certain drugs like β-lactam antibiotics are haptens and covalently bind to various soluble and tissue proteins, thereby forming novel antigens. Under homeostatic conditions, these neo-antigens do not induce an immune reaction, probably because co-stimulation is missing. During a virus infection, the hapten-modified peptides are presented in an immune-stimulatory environment with co-stimulation. A drug-specific immune reaction may develop and manifest as exanthema. Second, by increased pharmacological interactions with immune receptors (p-i) : drugs tend to bind to proteins and may even bind to immune receptors. In the absence of viral infections, this low affine binding may be insufficient to elicit T cell activation. During a viral infection immune receptors are more abundantly expressed and allow more interactions to occur. This increases the overall avidity of p-i reactions and may even be sufficient for T cell activation and symptoms. There is a situation, where the virus-DHR sequence of events is inversed: in drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS), a severe DHR can precede reactivation and viremia of various herpes viruses. One could explain this phenomenon by the massive p-i mediated immune stimulation during acute DRESS, which coincidentally acvitates many herpes virus-specific T cells. Through p-i stimulation, they develop a cytotoxic activity with killing of herpes peptide-expressing cells and release of herpes viruses. These concepts could explain the often transient nature of DHR occurring during viral infections and the often asymptomatic herpes-virus viraemia after DRESS.
Drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS), also known as Drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome (DIHS), is a rare but severe delayed-type drug hypersensitivity reaction [[](#ref-0001)1]. Its reported incidence ranges between 2 and 5 cases per million per year and the mortality between 5 and 10% [[](#ref-0002)2]. DRESS is characterized by the occurrence of an extensive rash with face edema, lymphadenopathy and fever and organ damage, all of which seems to result from massive drug-directed T cell response and associated eosinophilia. DRESS is a complex condition, its clinical presentation varies depending on the cutaneous manifestation(s), affected target organ(s) and reaction severity. The diagnosis of DRESS is further challenged by the clinical overlay with autoimmune, infectious and lymphoproliferative conditions, which have to be considered in the differential diagnosis (Table 1). Eosinophilia is detected in only 80 % of DRESS patients and can be masked by e.g. the administration of systemic glucocorticoids (GCS). Furthermore, there are various differences in the DRESS diagnostic criteria (Table 1) developed by the Japanese SCAR (JSPS) [[](#ref-0003)3] and RegiSCAR [[](#ref-0004)4] groups, the most notable being the inclusion of herpes viremia in the criteria developed by the JSPS. All these clinical challenges underline the importance of a systematic and comprehensive approach when encountering a patient with suspected DRESS. Based on the most recent literature and our clinical expertise, we therefore suggest the medical algorithm depicted in Figure 1. DRESS should be evoked as a differential diagnosis in patients with a rash suspected to be drug-related and associated with head-and-neck edema [[](#ref-0005)5]. Clinical history-taking is a critical element to consolidate or discard a drug-related etiology: most importantly, this should explore the dynamics of both possible DRESS clinical symptoms and drug exposure(s) (date of onset, way and length of administration, previous exposures / reactions). A long drug exposure prior to disease onset, i.e. 2-8 weeks, is indicative for DRESS rather than other drug hypersensitivities – but the duration may vary depending on the causative drug. A thorough clinical examination, basic laboratory work-up, electrocardiogram, and - if a rash is present - a skin biopsy should also be performed. If the clinical presentation and drug exposure history substantiate the DRESS diagnosis, additional investigations should be performed depending on the suspected target organ damage (cf. case “complementary, patient-specific work-up”). Once the diagnosis is established, a severity assessment is warranted, since DRESS can range from mild forms with very limited organ damage to fulminant ones, e.g. characterized by (multi-)organ failure. There are no consensual severity scoring. In this algorithm, we suggest the scoring system used in France (RCT DRESSCODE, https://clinicaltrial.gov NCT01987076).

Ozge Ardicli

and 16 more

Background: Although avian coronavirus infectious bronchitis virus (IBV) and SARS-CoV-2 belong to different genera of the Coronaviridae family, exposure to IBV may result in the development of cross-reactive antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 due to homologous epitopes. We aimed to investigate whether antibody responses to IBV cross-react with SARS-CoV-2 in poultry farm personnel who are occupationally exposed to aerosolized IBV vaccines. Methods: We analyzed sera from poultry farm personnel, COVID-19 patients, and pre-pandemic controls. IgG levels against the SARS-CoV-2 antigens S1, RBD, S2, and N and peptides corresponding to the SARS-CoV-2 ORF3a, N, and S proteins as well as whole virus antigens of the four major S1-genotypes 4/91, IS/1494/06, M41, and D274 of IBV were investigated by in-house ELISAs. Moreover, live-virus neutralization test (VNT) was performed. Results: A subgroup of poultry farm personnel showed elevated levels of specific IgG for all tested SARS-CoV-2 antigens compared to pre-pandemic controls. Moreover, poultry farm personnel, COVID-19 patients, and pre-pandemic controls showed specific IgG antibodies against IBV strains. These antibody titers were higher in long-term vaccine implementers. We observed a strong correlation between IBV-specific IgG and SARS-CoV-2 S1-, RBD-, S2-, and N-specific IgG in poultry farm personnel compared to pre-pandemic controls and COVID-19 patients. However, no neutralization was observed for these cross-reactive antibodies from poultry farm personnel using the VNT. Conclusion: We report here for the first time the detection of cross-reactive IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 antigens in humans exposed to IBV vaccines. These findings have implications for future vaccination strategies and possibly cross-reactive T cell immunity.