The New Therapeutic Frontiers in the Treatment of Eosinophilic Esophagitis: Biological Drugs.

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a multifaceted disease characterized by a wide heterogeneity of clinical manifestations, endoscopic and histopathologic patterns, and responsiveness to therapy. From the perspective of an effective approach to the patient, the different inflammatory mechanisms involved in the pathogenesis of EoE and biologics, in particular monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), targeting these pathways are needed. Currently, the most relevant is dupilumab, which interferes with both interleukin (IL)-4 and IL-13 pathways by binding IL-4 receptor α, and is the only mAb approved by the European Medicine Agency and US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of EoE. Other mAbs investigated include mepolizumab, reslizumab, and benralizumab (interfering with IL-5 axis), cendakimab and dectrekumab (anti-IL-13s), tezepelumab (anti-TSLP), lirentelimab (anti-SIGLEG-8), and many others. Despite the undeniable economic impact of biologic therapies, in the near future, there will be room for further reflection about the opportunity to prescribe biologic agents, not only as a last-line therapy in selected cases such as patients with comorbidities involving common pathways. Although recent findings are very encouraging, the road to permanent success in the treatment of EoE is still long, and further studies are needed to determine the long-term effects of mAbs and to discover new potential targets.

Anaphylaxis caused by artisanal honey in a child: a case report.

BACKGROUND: Honey is a rare cause of food allergy, especially in children, but it can cause severe systemic allergic reactions. In the pediatric age group, only a few cases have been reported in the literature. Honey allergy may be caused by pollen content or bee-derived proteins. A role for Compositae has been suggested among pollen allergens. Allergology workup of a patient with suspected honey allergy is not well defined. Here we describe a rare case of anaphylaxis in a 5-year-old boy, sensitized to Compositae pollen (ragweed and mugwort), after the ingestion of artisanal honey. CASE PRESENTATION: The Slavic patient was referred to our hospital emergency department for generalized urticaria and breathing impairment. All the symptoms occurred approximately 30 minutes after the ingestion of a meal containing salmon and artisanal honey. The allergology workup revealed that a skin prick-by-prick test with the implicated artisanal honey was positive, while a variety of different commercial honey and salmon products yielded negative results. Skin prick test and serum-specific immunoglobulin E (IgE) results were also positive for Compositae pollen (ragweed and mugwort). Patients sensitized to weed pollens who ingest bee products may experience an immediate allergic reaction because of the cross-reaction between weed pollens and Compositae bee product pollen. In this case, primary sensitization may be due to airborne Compositae pollen. Commercial honey is heavily processed due to pasteurization and filtration, which removes most of the pollen. These observations highlight the role of Compositae pollen in the observed allergic reaction and suggest that the different pollen content in the artisanal honey relative to commercial honey was responsible for the allergic reaction in our patient. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first reported pediatric case of honey-induced anaphylaxis in a child under 6 years of age sensitized to Compositae pollen. Pediatricians should be aware of the potential risk of severe allergic reactions upon ingestion of honey and bee products, especially in patients sensitized to weed pollens. To diagnose honey allergy, obtaining a proper clinical history is essential. In addition, skin prick-by-prick tests are helpful, and may represent a simple method to screen for honey allergy in patients sensitized to Compositae pollen, in light of the potential risk.

New combinations in the treatment of COPD: rationale for aclidinium-formoterol.

The current guidelines on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) recommend the prominent use of bronchodilators, including long-acting ß2-agonists (LABAs) and long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs), while inhaled corticosteroids are recommended only in patients with severe disease or frequent exacerbations. LABA-LAMA combinations are indicated when single bronchodilators are insufficient to control COPD. A number of LABA-LAMA combinations are available, based on twice-daily or once-daily administration according to the 12- or 24-hour duration of action, respectively. The aclidinium-formoterol combination is based on the new LAMA aclidinium bromide, which has a high selectivity for M3 muscarinic receptors and a fast onset of action, and the well-known LABA formoterol. Both drugs require twice-daily administration. The fixed-dose combination of aclidinium 400 µg/formoterol 12 µg has shown in randomized controlled trials fast and sustained bronchodilation that was greater than either monotherapy and provided clinically significant improvements in dyspnea and health status compared with placebo, also reducing the use of rescue medications. The overall incidence of adverse events was low and comparable to placebo. These data define the aclidinium-formoterol fixed-dose combination as a new treatment option for patients with COPD. The need for twice-daily administration could be an apparent disadvantage compared to the available once-daily LABA-LAMA combinations, but the immediately perceived benefit in reducing dyspnea due to the fast onset of action, as well as reported correct patient use and satisfaction with the Genuair inhaler might prove useful in favoring adherence.