This is an open access article under the terms of the Creat ive Commo ns Attri butio n-NonCo mmerc ial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

The worldwide use of COVID‐19 vaccines has shown that immediate allergic reactions to the ingredients are rare but should be clarified by means of an allergological work‐up. This review aims to highlight the current state of knowledge and possible pathogenesis based on the literature published to date. In addition to recording a detailed history and performing skin tests, cellular tests (basophil activation or basophil histamine release test) by using the vaccines or modified compounds containing polyethylene glycol (PEG), rather than unmodified PEGs, have proven to be particularly helpful. Negative results with vaccines seem to indicate tolerance. Details of the performance of these cellular tests with different vaccines, PEGs of different molecular weights, other ingredients of the vaccines, as well as other PEGylated drugs, and the results in the context of COVID‐19 vaccination of various working groups worldwide are summarized.

Tanning beds have been classified as carcinogenic to humans. As a result, many countries have enacted laws regulating the use of commercial tanning beds, including bans for minors. However, there is no international overview of the current legal status of access restrictions for minors that provides details on their specific design regarding age limits and possible exceptions to the statutory regulation. Therefore, we performed a comprehensive web search of current tanning bed legislation for minors on the three continents North America, Australia, and Europe. Our findings regarding the existence and concrete design of access restrictions are presented graphically, using maps. We found a wide variety of different legislations. In Australia, a total ban on tanning beds exists, while in New Zealand, tanning bed use is banned for minors. In Europe, about half of the countries have implemented a strict ban for minors. In North America, we found differences in the age limit for access restrictions between the states, provinces, and territories for those regions that implemented a ban for minors. In the United States, some states have rather “soft bans” that allow use by minors with different types of parental consent. The patchwork in legislation calls for harmonization. Therefore, our comparison is an important starting point for institutions such as the World Health Organization or the European Commission to advance their goals toward a harmonization of tanning bed legislation in general and for minors in particular.

Background: Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) has significantly hampered the regular workflow for allergists and allergy departments. Materials and methods: The purpose of this review is to highlight our own experiences on SARS-CoV-2 and allergy as well as to discuss findings from the literature. Results: Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 is needed for protection against severe infection. Skin reactions may arise with SARS-CoV-2 infections. Short-term general immune reactions and skin reactions are also possible upon SARS-CoV-2 vaccination; however, they recur in only a proportion of patients during follow-up vaccinations. Initial reports of anaphylaxis after vaccination fueled public fear. On the other hand, more recent epidemiologic data do not show a substantially increased anaphylaxis risk compared with other vaccines. Fear-related reactions may be essential for many “anaphylaxis” reports. In Germany, the flow chart developed by Paul-Ehrlich-Institut (PEI) and Robert-Koch-Institut (RKI) together with the allergological societies helps to care for patients with suspected “allergy history” safely and effectively. Through this, patients with increased risk of anaphylaxis to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and their ingredients (e.g., polyethylene glycol (PEG), polysorbate 80) are identified. However, since only small amounts of these excipients are contained in mRNA vaccines, even some PEG-allergic patients can tolerate the vaccination. In Germany, an allergy test-guided procedure is recommended for high-risk patients, including an allergy history, prick tests, intradermal and basophil activation tests, and, if necessary, provocation tests. This also appears effective for anxiety reduction in patients with vaccination skepticism. To date, all of our patients have been able to be vaccinated with SARS-CoV-2 vaccines without the occurrence of significant reactions. Conclusion: Many initial concerns about unexpected side effects of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination have not been confirmed. The flowchart and, in the case of suspicion of hypersensitivity, an allergy test-guided risk assessment helps to reduce patients’ fear of vaccination and enables safe vaccination.

No abstract

Background Vaccination of the population is required to combat the COVID‐19 pandemic. Allergy testing could reduce anxiety towards COVID‐19 vaccination and thereby may increase vaccination rate, however, its effectiveness remains unclear. Methods One hundred and thirty prospective real‐life patients in need of but not daring to get vaccinated asked for allergy workup for COVID‐19 vaccine hypersensitivity in 2021/2022. Characterization of patients, identification of anxieties, decrease of patient's anxiety levels, overall vaccination rate and adverse reactions after vaccination were assessed. Results Tested patients were characterized by being female (91.5%) and having a high rate of previous allergies (e.g. to food 55.4%, drugs 54.6%, or previous vaccinations 50%) and dermatological disease (29.2%) but not always had medical contraindications for COVID‐19 vaccination. Sixty one patients (49.6%) were highly concerned (4‐6, Likert scale 0‐6) about vaccination and 47 (37.6%) expressed resolving thoughts about vaccinaion anaphylaxis (3‐6, Likert scale 0‐6). However only 35 patients (28.5%) were scared of getting COVID‐19 within 2 months (4–6, Likert scale 0–6) and only 11 (9%) patients had high expectations of getting COVID‐19 (4–6, Likert scale 0–6). Allergy testing significantly (p < 0.01 to p < 0.05 respectively) reduced the median anxiety of allergic symptoms following vaccination: dyspnoea (4.2–3.1), to faint (3.7–2.7), long‐term consequences (3.6–2.2), pruritus (3.4–2.6), skin rash (3.3–2.6) and death (3.2–2.6). After allergy testing, most patients (108/122, 88.5%) let themselves be vaccinated within 60 days. Revaccinated patients with previous symptoms experienced a reduction of symptoms (p < 0.05) upon revaccination. Conclusions Patients not daring to get vaccinated have more anxiety towards vaccination than to acquire COVID‐19. For those, allergy testing excludes vaccine allergy, and is a tool to increase vaccination willingness and thereby helps to combat vaccination hesitancy.

Transparent and accurate reporting is essential to evaluate the validity and applicability of risk prediction models. Our aim was to evaluate the reporting quality of studies developing and validating risk prediction models for melanoma according to the TRIPOD (Transparent Reporting of a multivariate prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis) checklist. We included studies that were identified by a recent systematic review and updated the literature search to ensure that our TRIPOD rating included all relevant studies. Six reviewers assessed compliance with all 37 TRIPOD components for each study using the published “TRIPOD Adherence Assessment Form”. We further examined a potential temporal effect of the reporting quality. Altogether 42 studies were assessed including 35 studies reporting the development of a prediction model and seven studies reporting both development and validation. The median adherence to TRIPOD was 57% (range 29% to 78%). Study components that were least likely to be fully reported were related to model specification, title and abstract. Although the reporting quality has slightly increased over the past 35 years, there is still much room for improvement. Adherence to reporting guidelines such as TRIPOD in the publication of study results must be adopted as a matter of course to achieve a sufficient level of reporting quality necessary to foster the use of the prediction models in applications.

Summary Background and objectives Cutaneous reactions following COVID‐19 vaccination have been frequently described, whereas larger case series by dermatologists are lacking. This study assesses SARS‐CoV‐2 vaccination‐associated skin reactions, severity, treatment, course, eliciting vaccines, allergy test results and tolerance to revaccination. Patients and methods Single‐institutional, non‐interventional study of dermatologists assessing cutaneous manifestations in 83 patients in Germany. Results 93 reactions were presented. Manifestations clustered into immediate (n = 51, 54.8%) and delayed hypersensitivity reactions (n = 10, 10.8%), chronic inflammatory skin diseases (n = 13, 14.0%), reactivation of latent herpes virus infection (pityriasis rosea/herpes zoster; n = 9; 9.7%) and others (n = 10, 10.8%). Vaccination was associated with new (76.3%) – mostly hypersensitivity reactions – or exacerbation of known skin diseases (23.7%), in this case predominantly chronic inflammatory skin diseases. Reactions occurred primarily within the first week (72.8%) and after first vaccination (62.0%). Treatment was required in 83.9% and hospitalization in 19.4%. In 48.8% revaccination led to recurrence of the same reactions. Disease was ongoing at last consultation in 22.6%, primarily in chronic inflammatory skin diseases. Allergy tests were performed in 15 patients (18.1%) and resulted negative. Conclusions It can be assumed that vaccination may trigger immune activation‐related reactions especially in those patients predisposed to develop respective skin diseases.