Asthma and obstructive sleep apnea: Unveiling correlations and treatable traits for comprehensive care.

Asthma and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) are common respiratory disorders. They share characteristics such as airway obstruction, poor sleep quality, and low quality of life. They are often present as comorbidities, along with obesity, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), and allergic rhinitis (AR), which impacts the disease's control. In recent years, there has been discussion about the association between these conditions and their pathophysiological and clinical consequences, resulting in worse health outcomes, increased healthcare resource consumption, prolonged hospital stays, and increased morbidity and mortality. Some studies demonstrate that treatment with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) can have a beneficial effect on both pathologies. This review summarizes the existing evidence of the association between asthma and OSA at their pathophysiological, epidemiological, clinical, and therapeutic levels. It intends to raise awareness among healthcare professionals about these conditions and the need for further research.

Control of allergic rhinitis in four latin american countries: Rinola study.

Background: Allergic rhinitis (AR) affects up to 40% of the general population, there are large-scale multicenter studies that have described its characteristics and few studies have focused on studying patients with AR in Latin America (LA). Methodology: A cross-sectional, descriptive, multicenter study was carried out in four LA countries (Colombia, Argentina, Cuba and Peru). Patients diagnosed with AR between November 2017 and June 2020 were included. Sociodemographic and clinical data, sensitization profile and current treatment were collected in the Electronic Data Collection (BDClinic). Patients also filled out this questionnaires: Rhinitis Control Assessment Test (RCAT), Reflexive Total Nasal Symptom Score (rTNSS), Modified ARIA Criteria for AR Severity (mARIA) and ESPRINT-15. Risk of bias was examined by applying the STROBE checklist. Results: The study included 412 patients. Median age was 25 years (15-39). Two hundred and twenty four (54.3%) were women. Nasal obstruction was present in 303 (73.5%). Three hundred and thirty four (81%) had a persistent AR. One hundred and twenty one (31.3%) had associated asthma. The most frequently positive skin tests were: Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus in 365 (88.6%) and Dermatophagoides farinae in 331 (81.3%). Four hundred and eleven patients (99%) reported that AR affected their quality of life. The median score of ESPRINT-15 was 1.87 (0.93-2.93), The mean values of RCAT and rTNSS were 19.01 (±4.59) and 5.4 (±2.97) respectively. Two hundred and fifty (60%) were receiving only oral antihistamines. Physicians decided to start nasal corticosteroids in 296 (71.8%). Only seventy patients (16.9%) were receiving immunotherapy. Conclusion: These findings confirm that most of patients with AR in LA have a persistent disease with a negative impact on quality of life. Dust mites are the main sensitizers. These findings will allow to know the true impact of AR and can lead to a better disease management.

[Bullous systemic lupus mimicking a Stevens-Johnson syndrome]. / Lupus ampolloso que simula síndrome de Stevens-Johnson.

Autoimmune bullous diseases represent a diagnostic challenge due to the wide spectrum of pathologies that share similar clinical features. This paper reports the case of a woman admitted with a supposed diagnosis of a Stevens-Johnson syndrome, in which the history, the profile of autoimmunity and interdisciplinary approach were of vital importance to clarify the clinical picture.

Las enfermedades ampollosas autoinmunitarias constituyen, en algunas ocasiones, un reto diagnóstico debido al amplio espectro de afecciones que comparten características clínicas similares. Se comunica el caso de una paciente que ingresó con un supuesto diagnóstico de reacción medicamentosa severa tipo síndrome de Stevens-Johnson, en la que sus antecedentes personales, perfil de autoinmunidad y aproximación interdisciplinaria fueron de vital ayuda para establecer el diagnóstico final.

Multinational experience with hypersensitivity drug reactions in Latin America.

BACKGROUND: Epidemiologic drug allergy data from Latin America are scarce, and there are no studies on specific procedures focusing on this topic in Latin America. OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical characteristics and management of hypersensitivity drug reactions in different Latin American countries. METHODS: An European Network of Drug Allergy questionnaire survey was implemented in 22 allergy units in 11 Latin American countries to report on consecutive patients who presented with a suspected hypersensitivity drug reaction. Each unit used its own protocols to investigate patients. RESULTS: Included were 868 hypersensitivity drug reactions in 862 patients (71% of adults and elderly patients were women and 51% of children were girls, P = .0001). Children presented with less severe reactions than adults and elderly patients (P < .0001). Urticaria and angioedema accounted for the most frequent clinical presentations (71%), whereas anaphylaxis was present in 27.3% of cases. There were no deaths reported. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (52.3%), ß-lactam antibiotics (13.8%), and other antibiotics (10.1%) were the drugs used most frequently. Skin prick tests (16.7%) and provocation tests (34.2%) were the study procedures most commonly used. A large proportion of patients were treated in the emergency department (62%) with antihistamines (68%) and/or corticosteroids (53%). Only 22.8% of patients presenting with anaphylaxis received epinephrine. CONCLUSION: Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and antibiotics were the drugs used in at least 75% of patients. More than half the reactions were treated in the emergency department, whereas epinephrine was administered in fewer than 25% of patients with anaphylaxis. Dissemination of guidelines for anaphylaxis among primary and emergency department physicians should be encouraged.

[Unilateral pulmonary artery agenesis with ipsilateral pulmonary hypoplasia as incidental finding in an asthmatic patient]. / Agenesia de la arteria pulmonar derecha con hipoplasia pulmonar ipsilateral como hallazgo incidental en un paciente con asma.

Unilateral absence of a pulmonary artery is an uncommon congenital heart disease. It can be related to respiratory symptoms such as asthma, an unusual finding in some of these patients. This paper reports the case of a 4-year-old male with recurrent respiratory infections and asthma symptoms, in who further studies found agenesia of right pulmonary artery with pulmonary hypoplasia of the same side.

La ausencia unilateral primitiva de una de las arterias pulmonares es una malformación congénita poco frecuente. Entre las manifestaciones clínicas de esta entidad se pueden encontrar síntomas respiratorios, como el asma, aunque la relación es infrecuente. Se comunica el caso de un niño de cuatro años de edad con episodios de infecciones respiratorias recurrentes y diagnóstico de asma, en quien posteriormente se encontró agenesia de la arteria pulmonar derecha e hipoplasia pulmonar secundaria ipsilateral.

Omalizumab vs. placebo in the management of chronic idiopathic urticaria: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the evidence derived from randomized controlled clinical trials on the efficacy and safety of omalizumab compared to placebo in controlling symptoms of chronic idiopathic urticaria/chronic spontaneous urticaria (CIU/CSU). DATA SOURCE: The electronic databases PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, Biomed Central, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Wiley, OVID, and HighwirePress were reviewed. The date limit was set to May 31th, but it was extended to September 30th of 2014 due to a new publication. No language restriction was used. The articles included were randomized trials controlled with placebo in individuals older than 12 years diagnosed with CIU/CSU refractory to conventional treatment, the intervention being, omalizumab at different doses, and the comparison, placebo. The primary outcome was symptom improvement according to the weekly score of urticaria severity (UAS7), the itch severity score (ISS), the weekly score of number of urticarial lesions, the dermatology life quality index, and the chronic urticaria quality of life questionnaire (CU-QoL). Databases were searched using the following Mesh or EMTREE key words including as intervention "omalizumab" or "humanized monoclonal antibody," compared to placebo and the disease of interest "urticaria" or "angioedema". The title, abstract and article were reviewed by two independent investigators, according to the selection criteria in each of the databases. An assessment of the quality of the articles was performed according to the bias tool from the studies of the Cochrane Collaboration. Information such as author data, date of study, number of participants, interventions, dose and frequency of administration, comparison, time of follow-up, measurements of weekly score of urticaria activity, pruritus severity score, weekly urticarial lesions, percentage of angioedema and post-treatment change were extracted. Frequency of adverse events and the ones suspected to be caused by the intervention drug were included. RESULTS: 770 records were identified in all databases described. 720 were eliminated for failing to meet the inclusion criteria in the first review or for duplicate records. 24 articles were reviewed by abstract, 18 additional articles were further removed, leaving 6 records for inclusion. An experimental study was excluded because it wasn't randomized. Five studies were finally included, with 1117 patients, of these 831 received a dose of omalizumab of 75 mg (183 patients, 16.38%), 150 mg (163 patients, 14.59%), 300 mg (437 patients, 39.12%) or 600 mg (21 patients, 1.8%), as a single dose, or every 4 weeks until 24 weeks maximum. The average age was 42.07 years, predominantly female gender and white ethnicity. It was observed that the use of omalizumab 300 mg lowered the weekly scores of urticarial activity in 19.9 vs. 6.9 on placebo (p <0.01), 19 vs 8.5 and 20.7 vs 8.01 in three studies, the weekly ISS (-9.2 vs. - 3.5, p <0.001, -9.8 vs -5.1 p < 0.01, -8.6 vs -4.0 and -9.4 vs -3.63 p <0.001 in four studies), and the percentage of angioedema-free days (omalizumab 95.5% vs. placebo 89.2% p <0.001, and 91.95% vs. 88.1% p <0.001 in two of the studies respectively). LIMITATIONS: The different doses used throughout the study, time of administration and follow-up periods ranged from single dose to monthly dose for 24 weeks. Therefore no meta-analysis of the review was conducted. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF THE MAIN FINDINGS: Despite the limitations, it is considered that omalizumab 300 mg is effective in treating chronic idiopathic urticaria refractory to H1 antihistamines. Further studies are required to determine the duration of effective treatment. REGISTRATION NUMBER OF THE SYSTEMATIC REVIEW: CRD42014010029 (PROSPERO. International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews).