Objective. To provide physicians with a clinical approach to metastatic Crohn's disease (MCD). Main Message. Metastatic Crohn's disease, defined as skin lesions present in areas noncontiguous with the gastrointestinal tract, is the rarest cutaneous manifestation of Crohn's disease. MCD lesions vary in morphology and can arise anywhere on the skin. MCD presents equally in both sexes and across age groups. Cutaneous findings may precede, develop concurrently with, or follow gastrointestinal involvement. A detailed history and thorough physical examination including a full-skin exam may help to exclude other dermatoses, as MCD can mimic other common disorders. A biopsy is required for a definitive diagnosis. Treatment options for MCD remain underwhelming due to the lack of randomized control studies and varying responses of reported therapeutic methods. Topical, intralesional, and systemic corticosteroids, antibiotics, traditional immunosuppressants, and surgery have shown mixed results. Recently, biologics have shown promise, even with refractory cases of MCD. Conclusion. MCD is an important cutaneous manifestation of this inflammatory disorder. Although a rare entity, early recognition can provide opportunity for successful therapeutic intervention.

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is an insidious autoimmune inflammatory condition that typically presents as a polyarticular process. This chronic systemic condition is 2 to 3 times more prevalent in women and can present at any age; however, there is a predilection for the 6th decade of life. 1 It is estimated that 1% of Canadians are currently affected by RA and with an aging population there is evidence of an increasing incidence rate. 2 Given the nature of the disease and the immunosuppressive treatment modalities available including conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) and biologics, there is higher propensity for

Background Patients with primary immunodeficiency (PID) are at increased risk for infections such as SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19), due to the nature of their diseases and being immunocompromised. At this time, four vaccines against COVID-19 (Pfizer-BioNtech’s Comirnaty®, Moderna’s Spikevax®, AstraZeneca’s Vaxzevria®, Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen®) have been approved for use by Health Canada. Due to the novelty of these vaccines, clinical studies in patients with PID are ongoing. Despite limited evidence, Canada’s National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) recommend that patients with PID without any contraindications should be vaccinated with any of the approved vaccines as the potential benefits of being immunized against the virus likely outweigh the risks of contracting a severe infection. The aim of this study was to understand the perceptions regarding COVID-19 vaccination among patients with PID and to identify specific factors related to vaccine hesitancy. Methods The Canadian Immunodeficiencies Patient Organization (CIPO) conducted an online survey of its members to evaluate uptake of the COVID-19 vaccines by patients with PID. Data was collected using a self-administered online questionnaire. The survey was conducted between March and April 2021. Results At the time of survey, among 370 respondents who had not received the COVID-19 vaccine, 302 respondents (81.6%) indicated they were very or somewhat likely to get vaccinated against COVID-19; and 68 respondents (18.4%) indicated they were somewhat or very unlikely, undecided, or not planning to get vaccinated. A large majority of respondents indicated they had a diagnosis of PID (67.8%) and/or specified their type of PID (27.7%). The most common reason for vaccine hesitancy was primarily due to uncertainty about immune response given an underlying immunodeficiency. Other concerns included unknown long-term side effects of COVID-19 vaccination, pre-existing history of allergic reactions, limited amount of data, lack of investigation of safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in those with medical conditions, and skepticism of the underlying science and/or the medical system. Conclusions The results point to the importance of ongoing patient outreach, education, and up-to-date information on the rapidly evolving scientific knowledge and evidence on COVID-19 relevant to the PID community, from clinical trials to real-world evidence and observational studies.

Background Insulin hypersensitivity is rare, but challenging for individuals with diabetes. The prevalence of insulin allergy has decreased since the introduction of human recombinant insulin preparations. Hypersensitivity reactions range from injection site erythema and swelling, to anaphylaxis. While some reactions are to excipients (zinc, protamine, metacresol), many are to recombinant insulin itself. We present a case of type 1 hypersensitivity to various preparations of insulin in a patient with insulin-dependent type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Case presentation A 61-year-old woman with a 30-year history of insulin-dependent T2DM was referred for evaluation of reactions to insulin. She had two episodes over 5-months; both required Emergency Department visits and epinephrine administration. The first episode entailed a burning sensation of the extremities and nausea, immediately after injecting NovoRapid® insulin. The second event entailed a similar reaction but this time there was also angioedema of the upper airway with difficulty breathing and hypotension, immediately after injecting Levemir® and NovoRapid®, and taking metformin. There were no cofactors such as exercise, infectious illness, or NSAIDs use. Skin testing was performed with metformin, Lantus®, Humalog®, NovoRapid®, glulisine, insulin regular, NPH, Levemir® and the excipient protamine, as per published testing concentrations. Metacresol was not tested as its use was restricted by the hospital pharmacy. Insulin preparations with and without metacresol were included in testing however. A clinic staff served as a negative control. The patent had negative testing with protamine, but sensitization to all insulin preparations. Metformin skin testing and challenge along with latex IgE were negative. Subsequently, she underwent intentional weight loss of 70 lb, and was started on oral hypoglycemics with good effect. Conclusions Our case highlights the importance of diagnosing insulin allergy through a detailed history and focused testing. Therapeutic strategies include avoidance and insulin alternatives, alternate insulin preparations, or desensitization. In severe recurrent hypersensitivity reactions, Omalizumab or pancreatic transplantation have been effective.

Background: Indian jujube (Ziziphus Mauritiana Lam) is a sweet fruit from a tree native to tropical and subtropical regions of Asia and India. A few case reports have implicated Indian jujube to cause latex-fruit syndrome. We present the first case of an anaphylactic reaction to this fruit in a patient with no latex allergy. Case presentation: A 55-year-old male was referred to the Outpatient Allergy Clinic at Queen's University for evaluation of anaphylaxis caused by ingestion of Indian jujube. He presented to the Emergency Department (ED) with scalp pruritus, dyspnea and generalized urticaria, which occurred two hours after he had consumed a homemade candied fruit cocktail consisting of Indian jujube, water, Thai and Indian sweetener. In the ED, he was treated with epinephrine, intravenous diphenhydramine and steroids. He did not have any previous history of environmental or food allergies but had consumed this fruit frequently since childhood. In clinic, he underwent skin-prick testing with a saline slurry of candied jujube, which resulted in a positive wheal and flare response with appropriate controls. On subsequent visit, skin-prick tests were performed with saline slurries of the Thai and Indian sweetener used to make the cocktail. Both tests were negative when applied to a healthy volunteer. Skin-prick testing to latex allergen and latex specific IgE were both negative. He was diagnosed with an IgE-mediated anaphylactic reaction to the Indian jujube fruit. He was advised to avoid consumption of Indian jujubes and carry an epinephrine autoinjector. Conclusions: Anaphylaxis secondary to Indian jujube ingestion is an extremely rare phenomenon in patients without a latex allergy. A possible allergy to Indian jujube should be taken into consideration when working up anaphylaxis, especially in patient of Asian and Indian descent who have ceased regular consumption of the fruit.