Biomarcadores na urticária crônica: qual o seu papel? / Biomarkers of chronic urticaria: what are their role?

A urticária é uma doença com comprometimento universal, e debilitante para a maioria dos pacientes. Caracteriza-se pela ocorrência de episódios de urticas, angioedema ou ambos, determinados pela ativação de mastócitos e outras células inflamatórias com a liberação de vários mediadores. Apresenta etiologia complexa com fenótipos e terapias bem específicas. A urticária crônica possui evolução recorrente e imprevisível, podendo estender-se por anos. Caracteristicamente possui maior prevalência no sexo feminino, com pico de ocorrência entre 20 e 40 anos. A doença pode ser diferenciada pela gravidade, impacto na qualidade de vida do paciente e resposta terapêutica. Biomarcador é uma característica clínica ou laboratorial mensurável de algum estado ou condição biológica, o qual pode influenciar ou prever a incidência de desfecho ou doença. O objetivo deste artigo é realizar uma revisão dos principais biomarcadores promissores e com melhor evidência relacionados à duração, atividade da doença e resposta terapêutica.

Urticaria is a disease of global importance that can be debilitating for most patients. It is characterized by episodes of wheals, angioedema, or both, determined by the activation of mast cells and other inflammatory cells with the release of several mediators. The etiology is complex, involving specific phenotypes and therapies. Chronic urticaria has a recurrent and unpredictable course that can last for years. The prevalence is typically higher in females, with a peak incidence between 20 and 40 years of age. The disease can be classified by severity, impact on quality of life, and therapeutic response. A biomarker is a measurable clinical or laboratory characteristic of a biological state or condition that can influence or predict the incidence of outcome or disease. This study provides a review of the main biomarkers considered promising and with the best evidence related to duration, disease activity, and therapeutic response.

Clinical efficacy observation of omalizumab on patients with moderate to severe allergic asthma for one year / 中华预防医学杂志

To observe the symptom control, pulmonary function changes and safety of use of omalizumab in patients with moderate to severe allergic asthma for 1 year. A small sample self-controlled study before and after treatment was conducted to retrospective analysis involved 17 patients with moderate to severe asthma who received omalizumab therapy for 12 months in Peking University People's Hospital and Beijing Jishuitan Hospital from January 2020 to December 2021. The clinical symptoms and pulmonary function changes were compared before treatment, after 6 months and 12 months of treatment, and the clinical data such as the use of other drugs and adverse reactions were observed. Statistical data are collected using the median method, and non-parametric paired Wilcoxon analysis was used for pairwise comparison. Before treatment with omalizumab, the patients' FeNO value was 79(58, 121) ppb, and the total serum IgE was 228(150.5, 345.5) IU/ml. After 6 months of omalizumab therapy, the percent predicted value of the forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1%) before inhaled bronchodilator increased from 86.70(82.65, 91.35)% to 90.90(87.70, 95.85)% (Z=-3.626, P<0.001). The FEV1%pred after inhaled bronchodilator increased from 92.60(85.75, 96.90)% to 94.30(89.95, 98.15)% (Z=-2.178, P=0.029). The absolute value of improvement in FEV1 decreased from 150(95, 210)ml to 50(20, 125) ml (Z=-2.796, P=0.005), and the improvement rate decreased from 6.60(3.80, 7.85)% to 1.90(0.75, 4.85)% (Z=-2.922, P=0.003). After 12 months of treatment, the FEV1%pred before inhaled bronchodilator further increased to 92.90 (91.60, 98.15)% (Z=-3.575, -2.818, and P<0.001, 0.005 compared with before treatment and 6 months after treatment, respectively). The FEV1%pred after inhaled bronchodilator increased to 96.80 (91.90, 101.25)% (Z=-3.622, -1.638, and P<0.001, 0.008 compared with before treatment and after 6 months of treatment, respectively). The absolute value of improvement in FEV1 was 70 (35, 120) ml (P=0.004, 0.842 before treatment and 6 months after treatment, respectively), and the improvement rate was 3.0(1.0, 5.0)% (Z=-2.960, -0.166, and P=0.003, 0.868, compared with before treatment and after 6 months of treatment, respectively). After 12 months of treatment, ACT increased from 13 (10.5, 18) before treatment to 24 (23, 25) (Z=-3.626,P<0.001). Only 1 patient experienced an injection site skin reaction during treatment. Therefore, after 6 months and 12 months of treatment with omalizumab, the patient's lung function improved and symptoms were relieved, which could effectively prevent the acute exacerbation of asthma. Omalizumab treatment is safe and well tolerated, and no effect on blood pressure and blood glucose was observed.

A real world study of anti-IgE monoclonal antibody in the treatment of allergic united airway disease / 中华预防医学杂志

Objective: To investigate the clinical efficacy and safety of anti-IgE monoclonal antibody (omazumab) in the treatment of allergic united airway disease (UAD) in the real-wold. Methods: Retrospective cohort study summarizes the case data of patients with allergic united airway disease who were treated with anti IgE monoclonal antibody (omalizumab) for more than 16 weeks from March 1, 2018 to June 30, 2022 in the Peking University First Hospital.The allergic UAD is defined as allergic asthma combined with allergic rhinitis (AA+AR) or allergic asthma combined with chronic sinusitis with nasal polyps (AA+CRSwNP) or allergic asthma combined with allergic rhinitis and nasal polyps (AA+AR+CRSwNP). The control of asthma was evaluated by asthma control test (ACT), lung function test and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO). The AR was assessed by total nasal symptom score (TNSS). The CRSwNP was evaluated by nasal visual analogue scale (n-VAS), sino-nasal outcome test-22 (SNOT-22), nasal polyps score (TPS) and Lund-Mackay sinus CT grading system. The global evaluation of omalizumab for the treatment of allergic UADwas performed by Global Evaluation of Treatment Effectiveness(GETE).The drug-related side effects were also recorded. Matched t test and Wilcoxon signed-rank test were used to compare the score changes of IgE monoclonal antibody (omazumab) before and after treatment, and multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to determine the influencing factors of IgE monoclonal antibody (omazumab) response. Results: A total of 117 patients with UAD were enrolled, ranging in age from 19 to 77 years; The median age of patients was 48.7 years; Among them, 60 were male, ranging from 19 to 77 years old, with a median age of 49.9 years; There were 57 females, ranging from 19 to 68 years old, with a median age of 47.2 years. There were 32 cases in AA+AR subgroup, 59 cases in AA+CRSwNP subgroup, and 26 cases in AA+AR+CRSwNP subgroup. The total serum IgE level was 190.5 (103.8,391.3) IU/ml. The treatment course of anti IgE monoclonal antibody was 24 (16, 32) weeks. Compared with pre-treatment, omalizumab increased ACT from 20.0 (19.5,22.0) to 24.0 (23.0,25.0) (Z=-8.537, P<0.001), increased pre-bronchodilator FEV1 from 90.2 (74.8,103.0)% predicted value to 95.4 (83.2,106.0)% predicted value (Z=-5.315,P<0.001), increased FEV1/FVC from 80.20 (66.83,88.38)% to 82.72 (71.26,92.25)% (Z=-4.483,P<0.001), decreased FeNO from(49.1±24.8) ppb to (32.8±24.4) ppb (t=5.235, P<0.001), decreased TNSS from (6.5±2.6)to (2.4±1.9) (t=14.171, P<0.001), decreased n-VAS from (6.8±1.2) to (3.4±2.0)(t=14.448, P<0.001), decreased SNOT-22 from (40.0±7.9) to (21.3±10.2)(t=15.360, P<0.001), decreased TPS from (4.1±0.8) to (2.4±1.0)(t=14.718, P<0.001) and decreased Lund-Mackay CT score from (6.0±1.3) to (3.1±1.6)(t=17.012, P<0.001). The global response rate to omalizumab was 67.5%(79/117). The response rate in AA+AR (90.6%,29/32) was significantly higher than that in AA+CRSwNP (61.0%,36/59) and AA+AR+CRSwNP (53.8%,14/26) subgroups (χ2=11.144,P=0.004). Only 4 patients (3.4%,4/117) had mild side effects. Conclusion: The real-world study showed favorable effectiveness and safety of anti-IgE monoclonal antibody for treatment of allergic UAD. To provide basis for preventing the progress and precise treatment of allergic UAD.

Cost comparison of dupilumab and omalizumab for the treatment of severe allergic asthma patients from the Brazilian private healthcare system perspective / Comparação dos custos de dupilumabe e omalizumabe para o tratamento de pacientes com asma alérgica grave na perspectiva do sistema de saúde privado brasileiro

Objective: To compare the costs of dupilumab and omalizumab for treating severe allergic asthma patients from the perspective of the Brazilian private healthcare system. Methods: Using clinical and demographic inputs from the literature, we simulated a cohort of 5,000 severe allergic asthma patients and estimated the treatment cost with omalizumab. Results: In the simulated cohort, 81.3% were female, the mean body weight was 75.1 kg (SD 13.1), and the mean serum IgE was 532 IU/mL (SD 688). All patients were eligible for treatment with dupilumab, but 830 (16.6%) were ineligible for treatment with omalizumab due to serum IgE level and/or body weight combinations, according to the product label. Over four weeks, the mean dose of omalizumab was 537 mg (SD 285). The annual mean per-patient cost for treatment with omalizumab was BRL 110,783.89 (SD 58,385.81), ranging from BRL 31,797.49 to BRL 246,643.15. The treatment cost with dupilumab is BRL 111,724.21 for the first year and BRL 107,599.91 for subsequent years. Conclusions: We observed slightly lower mean treatment costs with dupilumab than with omalizumab. However, while the treatment cost with dupilumab is fixed and predictable, the treatment cost with omalizumab is highly variable, depending on patients' characteristics. Health managers should consider these findings for reimbursement and clinical protocol development decisions.

Objetivo: Comparar os custos de dupilumabe e omalizumabe para o tratamento de pacientes com asma alérgica grave na perspectiva do sistema de saúde privado brasileiro. Métodos: Utilizando parâmetros clínicos e demográficos a partir de dados da literatura, simulamos uma coorte com 5.000 pacientes com asma alérgica grave e estimamos o custo de tratamento com o omalizumabe. Resultados: Na coorte simulada, 81,3% eram do sexo feminino, com peso médio de 75,1 kg (DP 13,1) e IgE sérica de 532 IU/mL (DP 688). Todos os pacientes eram elegíveis para o tratamento com dupilumabe, porém 830 (16,6%) não eram elegíveis para o tratamento com omalizumabe devido a combinações específicas de IgE sérica e/ou peso corporal, de acordo com a bula do produto. Para o período de 4 semanas, a dose média de omalizumabe foi de 537 mg (DP 285). O custo médio anual por paciente do tratamento com omalizumabe foi de R$ 110.783,89 (DP 58.385,81), variando de R$ 31.797,49 a R$ 246.643,15. O custo do tratamento com dupilumabe é de R$ 111.724,21 no primeiro ano e R$ 107.599,91 nos anos seguintes. Conclusões: Foi observado que o custo médio do tratamento com dupilumabe é ligeiramente menor que o custo com omalizumabe. Todavia, enquanto o custo do tratamento com dupilumabe é fixo e previsível, o custo do tratamento com omalizumabe é altamente variável, dependendo de características dos pacientes. Esses achados devem ser considerados pelos gestores de saúde para decisões sobre reembolso e desenvolvimento de protocolos clínicos.

Reações adversas aos anticorpos monoclonais para doenças alérgicas / Adverse reactions to monoclonal antibodies in allergic diseases

A utilização de agentes imunobiológicos em alergia e imunologia tem sido cada vez mais frequente nos últimos anos, emergindo como potencialmente eficazes para o tratamento de doenças alérgicas e de hipersensibilidade. O uso de imunobiológicos em doenças alérgicas está recomendado nas formas graves onde a eficácia, segurança e custo-efetividade estão comprovados. O objetivo deste artigo é sintetizar os efeitos adversos mais comuns ou significativos, incluindo as reações de hipersensibilidade aos principais anticorpos monoclonais aprovados para o tratamento de doenças alérgicas licenciados e comercializados no Brasil até o momento.

The use of immunobiological agents in allergy and immunology has increased in recent years, emerging as potentially effective strategies to treat allergic and hypersensitivity diseases. The use of immunobiological agents is recommended in the severe forms of allergic diseases, for which their efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness have been established. The purpose of this study was to summarize the most common or significant adverse effects, including hypersensitivity reactions to the main monoclonal antibodies approved for the treatment of allergic diseases that are currently licensed and marketed in Brazil.

Guia prático de urticária para grupos especiais de pacientes / Practical guide to urticaria for special patient groups

A urticária crônica é uma condição que afeta mais de um milhão de brasileiros, com grande impacto na qualidade de vida. Mesmo com diretrizes bem difundidas para o seu diagnóstico e tratamento, seu manejo pode ser desafiador em pacientes pediátricos, idosos e gestantes. Para auxiliar o médico especialista nestes casos, o Departamento Científico de Urticária da Associação Brasileira de Alergia e Imunologia elaborou esta revisão com as principais dúvidas e dificuldades referentes ao tema nestes grupos de pacientes.

Chronic urticaria is a condition that affects more than a million Brazilians with a significant impact on quality of life. Although there are well-established guidelines for diagnosis and treatment, the management of chronic urticaria may be challenging in pediatric, older, and pregnant patients. With the purpose of helping specialists manage these cases, the Urticaria Scientific Department of the Brazilian Association of Allergy and Immunology prepared this review with the most common doubts and difficulties about this topic in those patient groups.

Urticária crônica espontânea nos adultos: diagnóstico e terapêutica no presente e futuro. Uma revisão narrativa / Chronic spontaneous urticaria in adults: diagnosis and therapy in the present and future. A narrative review

As urticárias são dermatoses frequentes, acometendo 15% a 20% da população, com pelo menos um episódio agudo da doença na vida. São classificadas em agudas (≤ 6 semanas) ou crônicas (> 6 semanas), de etiologia induzida ou espontânea. A urticária crônica espontânea tem prevalência estimada entre 1% e 2% da população mundial. Apresenta intenso comprometimento da qualidade de vida dos doentes, de forma que afeta várias esferas da vida como relacionamentos interpessoais, perdas laborais, interferência no estudo, perda de sono, entre outras, além de provocar transtornos psiquiátricos em 46% dos doentes pela imprevisibilidade das crises e peso monetário pela perda laboral e custo de tratamento contínuo. Atualmente os anti-histamínicos não sedantes (de segunda geração) constituem a pedra angular no tratamento da urticária crônica espontânea, em decorrência dos seus efeitos reduzidos sobre as atividades cognitivas e outras no sistema nervoso central e cardiovascular. A abordagem terapêutica se inicia com as doses licenciadas pelos fabricantes e é consenso internacional que os anti-histamínicos de segunda geração podem ser usados em doses duplicadas, triplicadas ou quadruplicadas, pois as doses padrão controlam apenas 39% dos doentes. Ainda assim, para grupo substancial dos doentes, torna-se necessária a segunda linha de tratamento, que é o omalizumabe, (um anticorpo monoclonal anti-imunoglobulina E [IgE] e anti-receptor de alta afinidade da IgE nos mastócitos e basófilos). Como terceira linha terapêutica, destaca-se a ciclosporina. Em raros casos refratários às medidas anteriores, há drogas com menor nível de evidência científica disponíveis, as quais são abordadas neste artigo de revisão.

Diretriz Latino-americana sobre o Diagnóstico e Tratamento da Alergia Ocular ­ Em nome da Sociedade Latinoamericana de Alergia, Asma e Imunologia (SLAAI) / Latin American Guideline on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Ocular Allergy ­ On behalf of the Latin American Society of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (SLAAI)

A alergia ocular, também conhecida como conjuntivite alérgica (CA), é uma reação de hipersensibilidade mediada por imunoglobulina E (IgE) do olho desencadeada por aeroalérgenos, principalmente ácaros da poeira doméstica e pólen de gramíneas. Os sintomas geralmente consistem em prurido ocular ou periocular, lacrimejamento e olhos vermelhos que podem estar presentes durante todo o ano ou sazonalmente. A alergia ocular tem frequência elevada, é subdiagnosticada e pode ser debilitante para o paciente. É potencialmente danosa para a visão, nos casos em que ocasiona cicatrização corneana grave, e na maioria dos pacientes associa-se a outros quadros alérgicos, principalmente rinite, asma e dermatite atópica. É classificada em conjuntivite alérgica perene, conjuntivite alérgica sazonal, ceratoconjuntivite atópica e ceratoconjuntivite vernal. O diagnóstico procura evidenciar o agente etiológico e a confirmação se dá pela realização do teste de provocação conjuntival. O tratamento baseia-se em evitar o contato com os desencadeantes, lubrificação, anti-histamínicos tópicos, estabilizadores de mastócitos, imunossupressores e imunoterapia específica com o objetivo de obter o controle e prevenir as complicações da doença.

Ocular allergy, also known as allergic conjunctivitis, is an immunoglobulin E-mediated hypersensitivity reaction of the eye triggered by airborne allergens, primarily house dust mites and grass pollen. Symptoms usually consist of ocular or periocular itching, watery eyes, and red eyes that may be present year-round or seasonally. Ocular allergy has a high frequency, is underdiagnosed, and can be debilitating for the patient. It is potentially harmful to vision in cases of severe corneal scarring, and in most patients, it is associated with other allergic conditions, especially rhinitis, asthma, and atopic dermatitis. It is classified as perennial allergic conjunctivitis, seasonal allergic conjunctivitis, atopic keratoconjunctivitis, and vernal keratoconjunctivitis. Diagnosis seeks to identify the etiologic agent, and confirmation is given by conjunctival provocation testing. Treatment is based on avoiding contact with triggers, lubrication, topical antihistamines, mast cell stabilizers, immunosuppressants, and specific immunotherapy with the aim of achieving control and preventing disease complications.

The role of biologics in eosinophilic esophagitis / O papel dos imunobiológicos na esofagite eosinofílica

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic inflammation in the esophageal mucosa driven by an antigen-mediated abnormal immune response with apparent increasing prevalence worldwide. Genetically predisposed individuals present with a dysfunctional esophageal barrier and an abnormal immune response mediated by Th2 and IgE against certain allergens. Consequently, esophageal lesions can cause dysmotility, fibrosis and loss of esophageal barrier function. Clinical manifestations are age-related and include symptoms of esophageal dysfunction. Diagnosis is established by specific histological features associated with the presence of at least 15 eosinophils per high-power field. Management of EoE includes control of allergic diseases with diet restrictions and/or pharmacological treatment with proton-pump inhibitors and corticosteroids, not completely effective and limited by possible side effects and impairment of quality of life. Although immunological mechanisms of EoE are still less clear than other allergic diseases, biologic trials indicate some promising perspectives for EoE management. The purpose of this review is to present the current evidence of biologic drugs as options for EoE treatment.

Esofagite eosinofílica (EOE) é uma inflamação crônica da mucosa esofágica com resposta imune antígeno-mediada anormal e com aparente aumento mundial na prevalência. Indivíduos geneticamente predispostos se apresentam com quadro de disfunção da barreira esofágica e uma resposta imune, mediada por TH2 e IGE, anormal contra certos alérgenos. Consequentemente, lesões esofágicas podem causar dismotilidade, fibrose e perda da função de barreira. O quadro clínico apresenta variação conforme idade e inclui sintomas de disfunção esofágica. O diagnóstico é estabelecido por achados histológicos específicos associados à presença de, ao menos, 15 eosinófilos por campo de alta potência. O manejo inclui controle do quadro alérgico com restrição dietética e/ou tratamento medicamentoso com bloqueadores da bomba de prótons e corticosteroides. São tratamentos sem completa efetividade, com efeitos colaterais e prejuízo na qualidade de vida. Ainda que os mecanismos imunológicos da EOE sejam menos claros que as demais doenças alérgicas, novos ensaios com imunobiológicos salientam uma perspectiva promissora de tratamento para a EOE. O objetivo desta revisão é apresentar as atuais evidências de uso de imunobiológicos como uma nova opção de terapêutica para a esofagite eosinofílica.

Tratamento da UCE refratária aos anti-histamínicos e na impossibilidade do omalizumabe, nos adultos / Treatment of CSU refractory to antihistamines and in the impossibility of omalizumab therapy in adults

Há o empenho contínuo de especialistas no desenvolvimento de tratamentos resolutivos ou eficazes nos controles das doenças, no entanto, a entidade urticária crônica espontânea (UCE), quando refratária à primeira linha de tratamento, os anti-histamínicos, apresenta um prognóstico desfavorável. Existe um arsenal de medicamentos biológicos disponíveis já consolidados como eficazes e seguros, porém eventualmente nos defrontamos com a inacessibilidade a estes medicamentos, devido aos custos dos mesmos e aos trâmites necessários para dar início ao tratamento. Tais fatos fundamentam a discussão sobre terapias alternativas com outros fármacos, visando manter o manejo adequado da doença e a qualidade de vida dos pacientes.

Specialists have made a continuous effort for the development of effective treatments for disease control; however, chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU), when refractory to the first line of treatment, ie, antihistamines, has an unfavorable prognosis. There are biological medicines available, which have been consolidated as effective and safe, but we are occasionally faced with a lack of access to these medicines due to their costs and the necessary procedures to start treatment. Such facts support the discussion about alternative therapies with other drugs, aiming at maintaining the adequate management of the disease and the quality of life of patients.

Omalizumabe no tratamento de urticária solar refratária aos anti-histamínicos: relato de caso e revisão da literatura / Omalizumab in the treatment of solar urticaria refractory to antihistamines: a case report and literature review

A urticária solar é uma forma rara de urticária crônica induzida (UCInd). Os sintomas se iniciam minutos após a exposição ao sol e persistem por até 2 horas, interferindo nas atividades diárias do paciente, e consequentemente na sua qualidade de vida. O omalizumabe, anticorpo monoclonal anti-IgE já aprovado para o tratamento da urticária crônica espontânea, tem sido utilizado no tratamento das urticárias crônicas induzidas com boa resposta, inclusive na urticária solar. Neste artigo, relatamos um caso de urticária solar refratária aos anti-histaminicos, sua evolução após o uso do omalizumabe, e fazemos uma breve revisão da literatura sobre o tema.

Solar urticaria is a rare form of chronic inducible urticaria. Symptoms start minutes after exposure to the sun and persist for up to 2 hours, interfering with the patients' daily activities and, consequently, their quality of life. Omalizumab, a monoclonal anti-IgE antibody already approved for the treatment of chronic spontaneous urticaria, has been used in the treatment of chronic inducible urticaria, including solar urticaria, with good response. In this article, we report a case of solar urticaria refractory to antihistamines, show the patient's evolution after the use of omalizumab, and briefly review the literature on the subject.

Vacina COVID-19 em pacientes com urticária ­ Posicionamento do Departamento Científico de Urticária da Associação Brasileira de Alergia e Imunologia (ASBAI) / COVID-19 vaccine in patients with urticaria ­ Position statement of the Scientific Department of Urticaria of the Brazilian Association of Allergy and Immunology (ASBAI)

Com o início do programa de vacinação contra a COVID-19 no Brasil, surgiu uma série de questionamentos relacionados ao uso dos imunizantes em pacientes com doenças imunoalérgicas. Neste documento, o Departamento Científico de Urticária da Associação Brasileira de Alergia e Imunologia (ASBAI) se posiciona revisando as principais dúvidas relacionadas à imunização para COVID-19 em pacientes com urticária.

As the COVID-19 vaccination program started in Brazil, many questions have arisen regarding the use of vaccines in patients with immune-allergic diseases. In this document, the Scientific Department of Urticaria of the Brazilian Association of Allergy and Immunology takes a stand by reviewing the main queries regarding COVID-19 immunization in patients with urticaria.

Vacinas COVID-19 e imunobiológicos / COVID-19 vaccines and immunobiological drugs

Os medicamentos imunobiológicos têm sido frequentemente utilizados no tratamento das doenças alérgicas e de natureza imunológica. Esses agentes regulam a resposta imunológica do tipo 2 nas doenças alérgicas ou atuam em diversas vias de ativação alteradas nos erros inatos da imunidade. Com o surgimento da pandemia COVID-19 um crescente número de pacientes em uso de imunobiológicos para essas condições deverão ser vacinados contra o vírus SARS-CoV-2. Dessa forma, existe a necessidade de avaliar a segurança e eficácia destas vacinas nos pacientes em uso de imunobiológicos para asma, dermatite atópica, rinossinusite crônica com pólipos nasais, urticária crônica e erros inatos da imunidade. Foi realizada uma busca de literatura recente relevante sobre imunobiológicos e vacinas COVID-19 no PubMed. Existe um consenso de manutenção desses agentes durante a pandemia COVID-19, embora nas doenças alérgicas os mesmos devam ser suspensos durante a infecção ativa. Por outro lado, dados disponíveis em relação à segurança e eficácia das vacinas contra a COVID-19 nesse grupo de pacientes são escassos. Existem relatos do uso de outras vacinas inativadas em associação com alguns imunobiológicos demonstrando serem eficazes e seguras. Portanto, considerando o risco potencial da infecção COVID-19, especialmente nos pacientes portadores de erros inatos da imunidade, recomendamos que as vacinas contra a COVID-19 sejam utilizadas nos pacientes em uso de imunobiológicos. Desta forma, existe uma necessidade de estudos que avaliem estas questões haja vista que a terapia com diversos imunobiológicos tem sido amplamente utilizada nos pacientes com doenças alérgicas e de natureza imunológica.

Immunobiological drugs have often been used to treat allergic and immunological diseases. These agents regulate the type 2 immune response in allergic diseases or act on different activation pathways altered in inborn errors of immunity. With the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic, an increasing number of patients with these conditions using these agents should be vaccinated against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Thus, there is a need to evaluate the safety and efficacy of these vaccines in patients using biologics for asthma, atopic dermatitis, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, chronic urticaria, and inborn errors of immunity. A search for relevant recent literature on biologics and COVID-19 vaccines was conducted on PubMed. There is a consensus on maintaining the use of these agents during the COVID-19 pandemic, although in allergic diseases they must be suspended during active infection. Conversely, the available data regarding the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines are scarce. There are reports of the use of other inactivated vaccines with some biologics proving to be effective and safe. Therefore, considering the potential risk of COVID-19 infection, especially in patients with inborn errors of immunity, we recommend that COVID-19 vaccines should be used in patients using biologics. Thus, there is a need for studies to assess these issues, given that therapy with several biologics has been widely used in patients with allergic and immunological diseases.

Dupilumabe na urticária crônica espontânea refratária ao omalizumabe / Dupilumab in chronic spontaneous urticaria refractory to omalizumab

A urticária é uma lesão cutânea eritematosa, edematosa e pruriginosa, mais prevalente em mulheres entre 30 a 50 anos de idade, sendo classificada em aguda ou crônica. O quadro clínico da urticária crônica espontânea é desencadeado independentemente de estímulos exógenos, podendo ser acompanhado de angioedema em 40% dos casos. O diagnóstico é clínico e a doença pode ser monitorada com escores. O tratamento da urticária crônica espontânea é baseado em anti-histamínicos H1 de segunda geração como primeira linha. A segunda linha se baseia no aumento da dose de anti-histamínicos H1 em até quatro vezes a dose habitual, a terceira linha consiste na associação de imunobiológicos como o omalizumabe, e a quarta linha no uso de ciclosporina. Este relato de caso teve como objetivo analisar a eficácia e segurança do tratamento com dupilumabe na urticária crônica espontânea refratária ao omalizumabe, utilizando os escores de atividade da urticária e o questionário de qualidade de vida em dermatologia. A partir dos resultados obtidos, verificou-se sucesso terapêutico com dupilumabe, que se manteve mesmo após suspensão do medicamento. O uso off label do dupilumabe justificou-se pelo seu mecanismo de ação na fisiopatologia da doença. Este é o primeiro relato de caso brasileiro do uso de dupilumabe para urticária crônica espontânea refratária ao omalizumabe.

Urticaria is an erythematous, edematous, and pruritic skin lesion, most prevalent in women between 30 and 50 years of age, and classified as acute or chronic. The clinical features of spontaneous chronic urticaria are triggered regardless of exogenous stimuli and may be accompanied by angioedema in 40% of cases. The diagnosis is clinical and the disease can be monitored with scores. The first-line treatment of spontaneous chronic urticaria is based on second-generation H1 antihistamines. The second-line treatment is based on increasing the dose of H1 antihistamines by up to four times the standard dose, the third line consists of the association with biologics such as omalizumab, and the fourth line consists of the use of cyclosporine. The present case report aimed to analyze the efficacy and safety of dupilumab treatment for chronic spontaneous urticaria refractory to omalizumab, quantifying clinical improvement and quality of life using urticaria activity scores and a dermatology quality of life questionnaire, respectively. The results obtained showed therapeutic success with dupilumab, which was maintained even after drug suspension. Offlabel use of dupilumab was justified by its mechanism of action in the pathophysiology of the disease. This is the first Brazilian case report of the use of dupilumab for chronic spontaneous urticaria refractory to omalizumab.

Short-term efficacy of anti-IgE monoclonal antibody in patients with recurrent chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps combined with asthma / 中华耳鼻咽喉头颈外科杂志

Objective: To investigate the short-term efficacy of anti-IgE monoclonal antibody (Omalizumab) in the treatment of recurrent chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) complicated with asthma. Methods: Patients with recurrent CRSwNP and comorbid asthma in Beijing TongRen Hospital from May to December of 2020 were continuously recruited and received a 4-month therapy of stable background treatment plus Omalizumab. Results of visual analog scales (VAS) of nasal symptoms, sino-nasal outcome test-22 (SNOT 22) and nasal polyp scores were collected at baseline and post-treatment (1, 2, 3 and 4 months after treatment). Blood routine tests, total nasal resistances (TNR), minimum cross-sectional areas (MCA), total nasal cavity volumes (NCV), forced expiratory volumes in one second (FEV1)/forced vital capacity (FVC) and adverse events were collected at baseline and 4 months after treatment. All results were evaluated for short-term efficacy of Omalizumab. GraphPad Prism 8.2.1 was used for statistic analysis. Results: Ten patients were collected, including 3 males and 7 females, aged (41.13±12.64) years old (x¯±s). Compared to results at baseline, the VAS scores of nasal obstruction, rhinorrhea, hyposmia and headache after 4 months treatment were significantly decreased (1.80±1.48 vs 6.70±2.83, 2.40±1.27 vs 6.40±3.44, 2.70±2.91 vs 8.20±2.25, 0.60±1.08 vs 3.60±2.72, t value was 5.045, 4.243, 5.312, 3.402, respectively, all P<0.01). The scores of SNOT-22 (25.6±20 vs 61.3±33.32, t=4.127, P=0.002 6), nasal polyp scores (2.20±0.92 vs 4.60±0.84, t=9.000, P<0.01) and the count and percentage of eosinophils in peripheral blood were significantly decreased ((94.10±97.78)×109/L vs (360.00±210.80)×109/L, (32.90±27.06)% vs (64.40±20.73)%, t value was 3.678, 2.957, respectively, all P<0.05). NCV (0-5 cm and 0-7 cm) of patients were improved from baseline ((12.62±2.84) cm3 vs (10.40±2.09) cm3, (27.50±14.15) cm3 vs (16.81±6.40) cm3, t value was 2.371, 2.445, respectively, all P<0.05). Conclusions: The 4-month treatment of Omalizumab can significantly improve the nasal symptoms and quality of life of patients with recurrent CRSwNP complicated with asthma, shrink nasal polyps size and reduce the number of peripheral blood eosinophils. Omalizumab can be used as an alternative therapy for refractory CRSwNP patients in the future.