Digital technology for anaphylaxis management impact on patient behaviour: A randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Epinephrine is the first-line treatment for anaphylaxis. Patients at risk should always carry an epinephrine autoinjector (EAI). Several EAI gaps have been identified. We sought to evaluate satisfaction using a medical device (digital technology comprising an EAI smart case connected to a mobile APP) with functions that overcome most of the EAI limitations and to determine whether patient behaviour and anaphylaxis management improve with its use. METHODS: This was a randomized, open-label, crossover clinical trial in a tertiary hospital involving patients with history of anaphylaxis carrying an EAI. The study was conducted in two three-month periods, one with and one without the medical device. The primary endpoint was satisfaction with the medical device. Usability, adherence, anxiety and anaphylaxis episodes were evaluated as secondary endpoints. RESULTS: A total of 100 patients were included (mean age 38.1 years, 74% female), and 95 completed the trial. The satisfaction visual analogue scale (VAS) after using the medical device was higher than before its use (89.1 [95% CI, 60.2-99.1] vs 56.3 [95% CI, 48.1-81.4]; P < .0001). The adherence VAS improved from 59.7 (95% CI, 54.0-65.3) to 88.6 (95% CI, 84.2-92.9) (P < .0001). Overall, 90% patients found the medical device easy to use. Patients' anxiety decreased from 52.2% to 29.3% (P < .001). Seven episodes of anaphylaxis occurred during the study, all in patients without the medical device (P = .025). Eighty-eight per cent of patients felt more involved in the management of anaphylaxis when using the medical device. CONCLUSION: This is the first clinical trial evaluating digital technology for EAIs, showing a change of behaviour in patients at risk of anaphylaxis, increasing satisfaction, improving adherence, and reducing anxiety, with good usability.

Systemic inflammation biomarkers during angioedema attacks in hereditary angioedema.

Background: Hereditary angioedema (HAE) is a rare disease characterized by localized and self-limited angioedema (AE) attacks. A local increase of bradykinin (BK) mediates AE attacks in HAE, however the role of inflammation in HAE has been poorly explored We aim to analyze the role of inflammatory mediators in HAE patients during AE attacks. Methods: Patients with a confirmed HAE diagnosis due to C1 inhibitor deficiency (HAE-C1INH) or patients F12 gene mutations (HAE-FXII) attending to our outpatient clinic between November-2019 and May-2022 were included. Demographic and clinical characteristics were analyzed. Blood samples were collected both during symptom-free periods (baseline) and during HAE attacks, and acute phase reactants (APR), such as serum amyloid A (SAA), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C-reactive protein (CRP), D-Dimer and white blood cells were measured. Results: Seventy-eight patients were enrolled in the study, with a predominant representation of women (76%, n=59), and a mean age of 47.8 years (range 6-88). Among them, 67% (n=52) of patients had HAE-C1INH (46 classified as type 1 and 6 as type 2) while 33% (n=26) had HAE-FXII. During attack-free periods, the majority of patients exhibited normal levels of SAA, ESR, D-dimer, ACE and WCC. However, in a subset of patients (16% for SAA, 18% for ESR, and 14.5% for D-dimer), elevations were noted at baseline. Importantly, during HAE attacks, significant increases were observed in SAA in 88% of patients (p< 0.0001 vs. baseline), in ESR in 65% (p= 0.003 vs. baseline) and D-dimer in 71% (p=0.001 vs. baseline) of the patients. A comparison between baseline and acute attack levels in 17 patients revealed significant differences in SAA AA (p<0. 0001), ESR (p<0.0001) and D-dimer (p= 0.004). No significant differences were observed in CRP (p=0.7), ACE (p=0.67) and WCC (p=0.54). These findings remained consistent regardless of HAE type, disease activity or location of angioedema. Conclusion: The systemic increase in APR observed during HAE attacks suggests that inflammation extends beyond the localized edematous area. This finding underscores the potential involvement of inflammatory pathways in HAE and highlights the need for further investigation into their role in the pathophysiology of HAE.

Challenging dogmas: Intravenous versus oral beta-lactam antibiotic provocation tests.

Background: Drug provocation tests (DPT) are considered the gold standard procedure to ascertain the diagnosis of beta-lactam (BL) allergy. Regarding route of administration, current recommendations prioritize oral challenges, considering them safer, and reserving the intravenous route for drugs for which this is the only formulation. Objective: To compare in terms of tolerance and safety two protocols of BL DPT, using an oral protocol (OR-DPT) and an intravenous protocol (IV-DPT). Methods: A descriptive, retrospective study was performed, including adult patients who underwent IV-DPT or OR-DPT for suspected immediate or delayed hypersensitivity to BL antibiotics, over a period of 4 years (between January 2018 and December 2021). Demographical data, index hypersensivity reactions' characteristics and tolerance to DPT were reviewed. Results: A total of 1036 patients underwent DPT, mean age of 56.8 (standard deviation, SD, 17.8) years, 655 were women (63.2%). Immediate drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHR) had occurred in 564 of patients (54.4%). OR-DPT were performed in 439 (42.4%) and IV-DPT in 597 (57.6%). The frequency of reactions during DPT, regardless of the route used, was low (3.6%): only 16 (3.6%) in OR-DPT and 21 (3.5%) in IV-DPT. From IV-DPT, 16 out 21 DHR during DPT were immediate compared with 4 out of 16 in OR-DPT. Adjusted relative risk of developing a hypersensitivity reaction during IV-DPT versus OR-DPT was 1.13 (95% confidence interval (CI)0.57-2.22). Conclusion: The results suggest that OR-DPT and IV-DPT are both safe procedures when adequately performed. However, IV-DPT protocols showed a higher rate of immediate DHR during DPT probably due to the selection of basal high-risk patients to undergo IV-DPT. In conclusion, IV-DPT may be considered as an option for challenges in drug-allergy studies, entailing a precise administration.

Molecular diagnosis contribution for personalized medicine.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of the current review is to highlight the most recent findings in molecular allergy and its applicability in precision medicine for allergic patients. RECENT FINDINGS: Molecular allergy provides useful information in areas of respiratory allergy (house dust mites, pet dander and pollen allergy), food allergy (tree nuts, peanuts, fruits and vegetables), hymenoptera venom allergy and others, in order to improve management of patients. Regional differences in sensitization profiles, assay characteristics and interpretation of molecular sensitization in relation to whole extracts and total immunoglobulin E need to be taken into account. Studies of the impact of such strategies are needed. SUMMARY: Molecular allergy diagnosis represents a major contribution for personalized medicine. It aids in the assesment of risk prediction, disease severity, genuine/cross-reactive sensitization, and finally to apply precise management strategies.

Identification of Two Eosinophil Subsets in Induced Sputum from Patients with Allergic Asthma According to CD15 and CD66b Expression.

Two subsets of eosinophils have been described: resident eosinophils with homeostatic functions (rEOS) in healthy subjects and in patients with nonallergic eosinophilic asthma, and inflammatory eosinophils (iEOS) in blood and lung samples from patients with allergic asthma. We explored if it would be possible to identify different subsets of eosinophils using flow cytometry and the gating strategy applied to induced sputum. We conducted an observational cross-sectional single-center study of 62 patients with persistent allergic asthma. Inflammatory cells from induced sputum samples were counted by light microscopy and flow cytometry, and cytokine levels in the supernatant were determined. Two subsets of eosinophils were defined that we call E1 (CD66b-high and CD15-high) and E2 (CD66b-low and CD15-low). Of the 62 patients, 24 were eosinophilic, 18 mixed, 10 paucigranulocytic, and 10 neutrophilic. E1 predominated over E2 in the eosinophilic and mixed patients (20.86% vs. 6.27% and 14.42% vs. 4.31%, respectively), while E1 and E2 were similar for neutrophilic and paucigranulocytic patients. E1 correlated with IL-5, fractional exhaled nitric oxide, and blood eosinophils. While eosinophil subsets have been identified for asthma in blood, we have shown that they can also be identified in induced sputum.

One-Dilution Rapid Desensitization Protocol to Chemotherapeutic and Biological Agents: A Five-Year Experience.

BACKGROUND: Rapid drug desensitization (RDD) becomes a crucial procedure to allow treatment continuation in patients who suffer drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) to chemotherapeutic (CMT) and biological agents (BA). OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy and safety of a one-bag dilution protocol (1DP) with a conventional three-bag dilution protocol (3DP) for desensitization of patients with CMT or BA hypersensitivity. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of patients with immediate DHRs to CMT or BA who underwent at least 1 RDD procedure in our department between 2014 and 2019 was performed. Demographical data, clinical history, skin tests, tryptase levels, and risk assessment were registered. The safety, tolerability, occurrence, and severity of breakthrough reactions (BTR) with 3DP and 1DP were compared. RESULTS: After the allergy workup, 157 patients fulfilled criteria to undergo RDD (137 females, mean age: 60.44 ± 12.6 years). A total of 639 RDDs (543 CMT and 96 BA) were performed using 3DP in 205 (48 patients) and 1DP in 434 (109 patients). Almost all procedures (636) were completed successfully. No BTR occurred in the first RDD in 52% and 51% of the 3DP and 1DP, respectively. Most BTR were mild. Moderate-severe BTR occurred in 17% with 3DP and 9% with 1DP. There were no statistical differences between protocols regarding the rate and severity of BTR. CONCLUSIONS: RDD with 1DP to CMT and BA has equivalent outcomes to a 3DP desensitization in a selected population of patients in terms of efficacy, tolerability, and safety. Moreover, 1DP reduces the time required for RDD and simplifies the logistics.