Theiler, Regan

Abstract Background Pemphigoid gestationis (PG) and polymorphic eruption of pregnancy (PEP) are pregnancy‐related dermatoses. Definitive diagnosis often relies upon histopathology and direct immunofluorescence (DIF). PG is associated with fetal and neonatal risks, while PEP confers minimal risk. Objective We aimed to compare histopathologic features to determine key differentiators. Methods A retrospective cohort study of PG and PEP cases, with accompanying DIF, conducted from 1995 to 2020. Skin biopsies were examined independently in a blinded fashion by two dermatopathologists for a list of histopathological features. Results Twenty‐one cases of PG and 10 cases of PEP were identified. PG had significantly denser eosinophils than PEP (mean 155 vs. 48 cells/5 hpf; p < 0.018). PG was also noted to have eosinophilic spongiosis and eosinophils at the dermal–epidermal junction more frequently compared to PEP (80% PG vs. 10% PEP; p < 0.001). A mean cutoff value of 86 eosinophils and a mean optimal sensitivity and specificity of 81% and 83%, respectively, for eosinophils density's diagnostic power of PEP versus PG were achieved. Subepithelial separation was exclusively seen in PG (40% vs. 0%; p < 0.007). Conclusion Eosinophilic spongiosis, eosinophilic epitheliotropism, and dense superficial dermal eosinophils were diagnostic of PG. Given overlapping clinicopathologic features, however, DIF results with clinicopathologic correlation, remain the gold standard.

Background Patients with self-reported antibiotic allergies have a higher cost of care, more frequent infections with resistant bacteria and worse health outcomes than patients without antibiotic allergies. Ultimately, less than 5% of patients who report a penicillin allergy have a clinically significant immune-mediated hypersensitivity reaction when tested. As 10%–30% of the population of pregnant patients are colonised for group B Streptococcus (GBS) and guidelines recommend penicillin as the treatment of choice for GBS, current recommendations support penicillin allergy testing in pregnant patients who report an allergy. Methods and intervention In this quality improvement project, nursing staff used an algorithm outlining inclusion and exclusion criteria to determine which patients were eligible to have penicillin allergy testing completed. Penicillin allergy testing consisted of a skin test using benzylpenicilloyl polylysine (Pre-Pen), penicillin G potassium, amoxicillin and alkaline hydrolysis mix (penicilloate) as a prick skin test, followed by intradermal skin test and finally an oral challenge with either amoxicillin or penicillin. Patient outcomes were analysed to evaluate the impact of the intervention. Results Of the 1266 patients receiving prenatal care during the intervention, 236 (19%) reported a history of penicillin allergy, and 212 if these were eligible for testing. 150 of the eligible patients were offered penicillin allergy testing. 101 patients (67%) completed testing and 49 (33%) declined testing. Seven patients (7%) had positive penicillin allergy testing, while 94 patients (93%) had negative penicillin allergy testing and were immediately de-labelled as penicillin allergic. Seventeen of the de-labelled patients subsequently tested positive for GBS colonisation, and all received intrapartum penicillin without adverse events. Conclusions Pursuing penicillin allergy testing for pregnant patients with reported penicillin allergy is a safe and feasible approach, allowing for allergy de-labelling and safe, guideline-driven antimicrobial therapy during subsequent labour and delivery hospitalisations. Cost-effectiveness of the allergy testing and impact on later episodes of care should be further investigated.

Since the declaration of the global pandemic of COVID-19 by the World Health Organization on 11 March 2020, we have continued to see a steady rise in the number of patients infected by SARS-CoV-2. However, there is still very limited data on the course and outcomes of this serious infection in a vulnerable population of pregnant patients and their fetuses. International perinatal societies and institutions including SMFM, ACOG, RCOG, ISUOG, CDC, CNGOF, ISS/SIEOG, and CatSalut have released guidelines for the care of these patients. We aim to summarize these current guidelines in a comprehensive review for patients, healthcare workers, and healthcare institutions. We included 15 papers from 10 societies through a literature search of direct review of society’s websites and their journal publications up till 20 April 2020. Recommendations specific to antepartum, intrapartum, and postpartum were abstracted from the publications and summarized into Tables. The summary of guidelines for the management of COVID-19 in pregnancy across different perinatal societies is fairly consistent, with some variation in the strength of recommendations. It is important to recognize that these guidelines are frequently updated, as we continue to learn more about the course and impact of COVID-19 in pregnancy.