Long-Term Omalizumab in Elderly Patients with Chronic Urticaria: Is It a Safe Therapy?

BACKGROUND: Biologics have revolutionized the treatment of many diseases. In this regard, omalizumab (OMA), an anti-IgE monoclonal antibody, is the recommended therapeutic option for patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) refractory to second-generation H1-antihistamines. Several studies confirm the efficacy and safety of the drug. However, the literature focusing on the elderly population is scarce, as this age group is often excluded from clinical trials. Therefore, the pharmacological treatment of CSU in elderly patients is a challenge that is increased by their comorbidities and consequent polypharmacy. OBJECTIVES: We describe the real-life safety profile of OMA in elderly patients (≥70 years) with CSU and chronic inducible urticaria (CIndU). We aimed to provide data for daily clinical practice in this vulnerable patient group. METHOD: A retrospective review was performed of the records of patients with CSU/CIndU from May 2003 to December 2019 in the Hospital Universitario La Paz. We describe qualitative and quantitative data according to measures of central tendency. Comparisons between qualitative and quantitative data were performed with the Mann-Whitney U test and the Fisher's test for qualitative variables. A p value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Eighty-nine patients were included, divided into two groups (<70 vs. ≥70 years). The overall rate of adverse events (AEs) was 48%, mainly mild. No association between age and AE was found (p = 0.789). No serious AE such as anaphylaxis was detected. CSU predominated in both groups. CIndU was less prevalent in the elderly (p = 0.017). There was no association between age and the other variables. Although the frequency of neoplasms was slightly higher in the elderly with OMA, we found no difference compared to the incidence of neoplasms in the general population. Therefore, our data suggest that OMA may be a safe treatment in elderly people with CSU/CIndU for prolonged periods of treatment, although further studies with larger samples are needed to corroborate our observations.

Efficacy and safety of treatment with biologicals (benralizumab, dupilumab, mepolizumab, omalizumab and reslizumab) for severe eosinophilic asthma. A systematic review for the EAACI Guidelines - recommendations on the use of biologicals in severe asthma.

Five biologicals have been approved for severe eosinophilic asthma, a well-recognized phenotype. Systematic reviews (SR) evaluated the efficacy and safety of benralizumab, dupilumab, mepolizumab, omalizumab and reslizumab (alphabetical order) compared to standard of care for severe eosinophilic asthma. PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched to identify RCTs and health economic evaluations, published in English. Critical and important asthma-related outcomes were evaluated for each of the biologicals. The risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence were assessed using GRADE. 19 RCTs (three RCTs for benralizumab, three RCTs for dupilumab, three RCTs for mepolizumab, five RCTs for omalizumab and five RCTs for reslizumab), including subjects 12 to 75 years old (except for omalizumab including also subjects 6-11 years old), ranging from 12 to 56 weeks were evaluated. All biologicals reduce exacerbation rates with high certainty of evidence: benralizumab incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.53 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.72), dupilumab (IRR) 0.43 (95% CI 0.32 to 0.59), mepolizumab IRR 0.49 (95% CI 0.38 to 0.66), omalizumab (IRR) 0.56 (95% CI 0.40 to 0.77) and reslizumab (IRR) 0.46 (95% CI 0.37 to 0.58). Benralizumab, dupilumab and mepolizumab reduce the daily dose of oral corticosteroids (OCS) with high certainty of evidence. All evaluated biologicals probably improve asthma control, QoL and FEV1 , without reaching the minimal important difference (moderate certainty). Benralizumab, mepolizumab and reslizumab slightly increase drug-related adverse events (AE) and drug-related serious AE (low to very low certainty of evidence). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life year value is above the willingness to pay threshold for all biologicals (moderate certainty). Potential savings are driven by decrease in hospitalizations, emergency and primary care visits. There is high certainty that all approved biologicals reduce the rate of severe asthma exacerbations and for benralizumab, dupilumab and mepolizumab for reducing OCS. There is moderate certainty for improving asthma control, QoL, FEV1 . More data on long-term safety are needed together with more efficacy data in the paediatric population.

FENOMA Study: Achieving Full Control in Patients with Severe Allergic Asthma.

INTRODUCTION: A Spanish real-world study in patients with severe persistent asthma who achieved asthma control after a one-year treatment with omalizumab highlighted the phenotypic heterogeneity of these patients (FENOMA study). In this subanalysis, we describe the clinical improvement in patients with severe allergic asthma in this study (positive skin test and IgE level 30-1500 IU/mL); n=240. PATIENTS AND METHODS: FENOMA was an observational, multicentre, retrospective study in 345 patients achieving asthma control according to Spanish guidelines (GEMA). Baseline demographic and asthma-related characteristics were collected. Outcomes analyzed were those included in asthma control definition plus changes in background treatments and in blood eosinophil count (%) and exhaled nitric oxide fraction [FeNO]. RESULTS: At baseline, patients were aged 45.4±15.0 years; 67% were women. Median (Q1;Q3) IgE levels were 302.5 (154.0; 553.5) IU/mL. After one-year treatment with omalizumab: 43.3% of patients had daytime symptoms vs 97.7% before treatment and 49.6% stopped taking oral corticosteroids. FEV1 increased a median of 12.0 (4.0; 23.0)%; P <0.0001. The number of non-severe asthma exacerbations decreased a median of -4.0 (-7.0; 2.0); P <0.0001. Median unplanned visits to primary care or specialists and days of school/workplace absenteeism decreased from 4.9 (2.0; 6.0), 1.0 (0.0; 3.0) and 0.0 (0.0; 14.0) to 0.0 (0.0; 1.0), 0.0 (0.0; 0.0) and 0.0 (0.0; 0.0), respectively. Median eosinophil blood count and FeNO decreased from 5.0 (3:0; 8.0)% to 3.0 (2.0; 5.5)% and from 36.0 (23:0; 53.0) ppb to 20.0 (13.0; 34.0) ppb, respectively. CONCLUSION: This study highlights the asthma control achieved by patients with severe allergic asthma treated with omalizumab, with relevant benefits on the burden of the disease both on patients and the healthcare system.

'Hidden' occupational allergens such as additives.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: With the development of innovative technologies, new agents are continually introduced to the workplace. Some of these agents can act as hidden allergens whenever they are not declared in the product labels or whenever their health hazards are unknown. This review article focuses on the identification and description of unusual and/or hidden allergens recently incriminated in occupational diseases. RECENT FINDINGS: Occupational exposure is an important global health issue that can induce respiratory and cutaneous disorders, as well as life-threatening anaphylaxis. Apart from the classic forms of occupational exposure, reports have emerged from nonconventional or newly identified allergens or additives. These compounds are substances added to another in order to alter or improve the general quality or to counteract undesirable properties, and some of them may behave as potent and frequently hidden allergens. These highly uncommon and/or hidden allergens belong to several categories: foods, spices, cosmetics, insects, enzymes, chemicals, drugs, preservatives, and coloring agents, among others. SUMMARY: A high level of suspicion and awareness about the potential hidden allergens is necessary to ascertain the allergens implicated. It is of utmost importance to identify the specific eliciting agents of the occupational diseases in order to avoid strictly further exposure to them.

Identification and practical management of latex allergy in occupational settings.

Allergy to natural rubber latex (NRL) from Hevea brasiliensis is a relevant occupational health hazard. The use of gloves and products manufactured with latex and environmental allergen exposure in the work environment are risks factors for the development of occupational allergy among different job categories. Healthcare workers have been the most commonly affected, but other professions with exposure to latex products such as hairdressers, cleaners, food handlers and those making natural rubber latex (NRL) products are also at risk of developing occupational allergy. Clinical manifestations of IgE-mediated latex allergy can range from troublesome skin disorders to life-threatening systemic reactions. It is very important to identify the occupational allergic diseases in their early stages in order to implement avoidance strategies. For this purpose, the interventions for prevention should emphasize the importance of latex allergy awareness and surveillance among exposed workforces.