Meta-analysis of ACE inhibitor-induced angioedema identifies novel risk locus.

BACKGROUND: Angioedema is a rare but potentially life-threatening adverse drug reaction in patients receiving angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEis). Research suggests that susceptibility to ACEi-induced angioedema (ACEi-AE) involves both genetic and nongenetic risk factors. Genome- and exome-wide studies of ACEi-AE have identified the first genetic risk loci. However, understanding of the underlying pathophysiology remains limited. OBJECTIVE: We sought to identify further genetic factors of ACEi-AE to eventually gain a deeper understanding of its pathophysiology. METHODS: By combining data from 8 cohorts, a genome-wide association study meta-analysis was performed in more than 1000 European patients with ACEi-AE. Secondary bioinformatic analyses were conducted to fine-map associated loci, identify relevant genes and pathways, and assess the genetic overlap between ACEi-AE and other traits. Finally, an exploratory cross-ancestry analysis was performed to assess shared genetic factors in European and African-American patients with ACEi-AE. RESULTS: Three genome-wide significant risk loci were identified. One of these, located on chromosome 20q11.22, has not been implicated previously in ACEi-AE. Integrative secondary analyses highlighted previously reported genes (BDKRB2 [bradykinin receptor B2] and F5 [coagulation factor 5]) as well as biologically plausible novel candidate genes (PROCR [protein C receptor] and EDEM2 [endoplasmic reticulum degradation enhancing alpha-mannosidase like protein 2]). Lead variants at the risk loci were found with similar effect sizes and directions in an African-American cohort. CONCLUSIONS: The present results contributed to a deeper understanding of the pathophysiology of ACEi-AE by (1) providing further evidence for the involvement of bradykinin signaling and coagulation pathways and (2) suggesting, for the first time, the involvement of the fibrinolysis pathway in this adverse drug reaction. An exploratory cross-ancestry comparison implicated the relevance of the associated risk loci across diverse ancestries.

S3 guideline: Diagnosis and treatment of epidermal necrolysis (Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis) - Part 1: Diagnosis, initial management, and immunomodulating systemic therapy.

Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis (SJS/TEN) are rare, predominantly drug-induced, acute, life-threatening diseases of skin and mucosae. SJS and TEN are nowadays considered variants of one disease entity with varying degrees of severity called epidermal necrolysis (EN). EN is associated with high morbidity and mortality and constitutes a major disease burden for affected patients. The guideline "Diagnosis and treatment of epidermal necrolysis (Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis)" was developed under systematic consideration of existing scientific literature and in a formal consensus process according to regulations issued by the Association of Scientific Medical Societies in Germany (AWMF) to establish an evidence-based framework to support clinical decision-making. The interdisciplinary guideline commission consisted of representatives from various specialist societies and patient representatives. The guideline is aimed at specialists in the fields of dermatology, ophthalmology, plastic surgery, intensive care, and pediatrics in hospitals and offices, as well as other medical speciallved in the diagnosis and treatment of EN. The guideline is also aimed at patients, their relatives, insurance funds, and policymakers. This first part focuses on the diagnostic aspects, the initial management as well as the immunomodulating systemic therapy.

Limited Reimbursement and Underuse of Digital Healthcare Concepts Are Major Barriers to Clinical Allergological Care in Germany.

INTRODUCTION: Allergic diseases represent a broad spectrum of high-prevalence, chronic conditions that remain underdiagnosed and undertreated. The aims of this interdisciplinary, questionnaire-based, non-interventional study were to identify and analyze potential barriers to clinical allergological care in Germany. METHODS: All hospitals listed in the German hospital register involved in the treatment of allergological patients (n = 899) were invited to participate. The study yielded a response rate of 52.1% (n = 468). RESULTS: Overall, 88.5% of clinics agreed that allergological care in Germany needs improvement, especially in terms of reimbursement for diagnostics and therapy. More than 80% of participating clinics reported that the decreased availability of test substances and the time-intensity of allergological testing represent relevant barriers. For dermatology and pulmonology, the former is the strongest barrier, while for pediatric and ENT clinics, time-intensity is regarded as the strongest barrier. The availability of good therapy and appropriate guidelines present no barriers to allergological care. Regarding the use of digital healthcare concepts, a very large majority of clinics (n = 352; 91.4%) do not offer video consultations or the use of health applications in patient care. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, we have identified several structural barriers to allergological care in Germany. Reimbursement and the use of digital healthcare concepts in German clinics providing allergological care need improvement. Based on the results of this study, there is an urgent need for researchers and policymakers to further investigate and support allergology departments in their clinical work and in their implementation of digital healthcare concepts.

Current situation of allergological health care at German hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Allergic medical care in Germany is organized on an interdisciplinary basis. An overview of the current care situation is necessary to manage and improve interdisciplinary cooperation. METHODS: Between January and February 2022, questionnaires were sent online and by mail to chief physicians of inpatient clinical departments to which most allergological diseases are assigned (dermatology, otorhinolaryngology [ENT], pulmonology, pediatrics, environmental/occupational medicine, gastroenterology; n = 899). RESULTS: The response rate was 52.1%. Allergology departments of dermatology, ENT and pulmonology were predominantly located in metropolitan areas (> 100,000 inhabitants), whereas responses of pediatric departments were mostly from smaller towns. 76.8% of the respondents reported existing interdisciplinary treatment plans with other specialties. Pediatric and pulmonology clinics stated disproportionately few interdisciplinary treatment concepts with dermatology and ENT clinics, especially in smaller cities with < 100,000 inhabitants. Diagnosis and therapy of allergic rhinitis were performed in particular by the departments of ENT, asthma mainly by the pulmonology departments. Care of other allergological diseases was most frequently reported by chief physicians of dermatology and pediatrics. CONCLUSIONS: In metropolitan areas, participating departments provide allergology care in a cooperative manner. A large spectrum of care is covered in cooperation with dermatological clinics. In more rural areas, cooperation is rarer; here, mainly pediatric departments provide allergological care, which may explain the more limited range of services compared to metropolitan areas.

S3 Guideline Urticaria. Part 1: Classification and diagnosis of urticaria - German-language adaptation of the international S3 Guideline.

The lifetime prevalence of urticaria, a severe allergic disease, is almost 20%. It not only limits the quality of life of those affected, but also their general performance at work and in their daily activities. This publication is the first section of the Urticaria Guideline. It covers the classification and diagnosis of urticaria, taking into account the major advances in research into its causes, triggering factors and pathomechanisms. It also addresses strategies for the efficient diagnosis of the different subtypes of urticaria. This is crucial for individual, patient-oriented treatment, which is covered in the second part of the guideline, published separately. This German-language guideline was developed according to the criteria of the AWMF on the basis of the international English-language S3 guideline with special consideration of health system characteristics in the German-speaking countries. This first part of the guideline describes the classification of urticaria, distinguishing spontaneously occurring wheals (hives) and angioedema from forms of urticaria with inducible symptoms. Urticaria is defined as sudden onset of wheals, angioedema, or both, but is to be distinguished from conditions in which wheals occur as a short-term symptom, such as anaphylaxis. The diagnosis is based on (a limited number of) laboratory tests, but especially on medical history. In addition, validated instruments are available to measure the severity, activity and course of the disease.

S3 Guideline Urticaria. Part 2: Treatment of urticaria - German-language adaptation of the international S3 guideline.

This publication is the second part of the German-language S3 guideline on urticaria. It covers the management of urticaria and should be used together with Part 1 of the guideline on classification and diagnosis. This publication was prepared according to the criteria of the AWMF on the basis of the international English-language S3 guideline with special consideration of health system conditions in German-speaking countries. Chronic urticaria has a high impact on the quality of life and daily activities of patients. Therefore, if causal factors cannot be eliminated, effective symptomatic treatment is necessary. The recommended first-line treatment is to administer new generation, non-sedating H1 antihistamines. If the standard dose is not sufficiently effective, the dose should be increased up to fourfold. For patients who do not respond to this treatment, the second-line treatment in addition to antihistamines in the treatment algorithm is omalizumab and, if this treatment fails, ciclosporin. Other low-evidence therapeutic agents should only be used if all treatments in the treatment algorithm agreed upon by the guideline group fail. Both the benefit-risk profile and cost should be considered. Corticosteroids are not recommended for long-term treatment due to their inevitable severe side effects.

Ligelizumab for Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria.

BACKGROUND: In the majority of patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria, most currently available therapies do not result in complete symptom control. Ligelizumab is a next-generation high-affinity humanized monoclonal anti-IgE antibody. Data are limited regarding the dose-response relationship of ligelizumab and the efficacy and safety of ligelizumab as compared with omalizumab and placebo in patients who have moderate-to-severe chronic spontaneous urticaria that is inadequately controlled with H1-antihistamines at approved or increased doses, alone or in combination with H2-antihistamines or leukotriene-receptor antagonists. METHODS: In a phase 2b dose-finding trial, we randomly assigned patients to receive ligelizumab at a dose of 24 mg, 72 mg, or 240 mg, omalizumab at a dose of 300 mg, or placebo, administered subcutaneously every 4 weeks for a period of 20 weeks, or a single 120-mg dose of ligelizumab. Disease symptoms of hives, itch, and angioedema were monitored by means of weekly activity scores. The main objective was to determine a dose-response relationship for the complete control of hives (indicated by a weekly hives-severity score of 0, on a scale from 0 to 21, with higher scores indicating greater severity); the primary end point of this response was assessed at week 12. Complete symptom control was indicated by a weekly urticaria activity score of 0 (on a scale from 0 to 42, with higher scores indicating greater severity). Safety was analyzed throughout the trial. RESULTS: A total of 382 patients underwent randomization. At week 12, a total of 30%, 51%, and 42% of the patients treated with 24 mg, 72 mg, and 240 mg, respectively, of ligelizumab had complete control of hives, as compared with 26% of the patients in the omalizumab group and no patients in the placebo group. A dose-response relationship was established. At week 12, a total of 30%, 44%, and 40% of the patients treated with 24 mg, 72 mg, and 240 mg, respectively, of ligelizumab had complete control of symptoms, as compared with 26% of the patients in the omalizumab group and no patients in the placebo group. In this small and short trial, no safety concerns regarding ligelizumab or omalizumab emerged. CONCLUSIONS: A higher percentage of patients had complete control of symptoms of chronic spontaneous urticaria with ligelizumab therapy of 72 mg or 240 mg than with omalizumab or placebo. (Funded by Novartis Pharma; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02477332.).

Identification of novel biomarkers to distinguish bradykinin-mediated angioedema from mast cell-/histamine-mediated angioedema.

BACKGROUND: The pathophysiology of the underlying paroxysmal permeability disturbances in angioedema (AE) is not well understood. METHODS: To identify clinical and laboratory parameters specific for a certain AE subtype, 40 AE patients were prospectively enrolled: 15 hereditary (HAE), 13 ACE-inhibitor induced (ACE-AE), and 12 mast cell-mediated without wheals in chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU-AE). Ten healthy subjects served as controls. Serum levels of markers indicating activation of the ficolin-lectin pathway, of endothelial cells, or those indicating impairment of vascular integrity or inflammation were assessed by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. RESULTS: New routine clinical diagnostic criteria could not be identified, not even for distinguishing bradykinin-mediated (BK-) AE (ie, HAE and ACE-AE) from mast cell-/histamine-mediated CSU-AE. However, FAP-α and tPA were significantly increased in all AE compared to controls. In HAE, FAP- α, tPA, uPAR, pentraxin-3, Tie-2, sE-selectin, and VE-cadherin were significantly increased compared to controls. In HAE compared to CSU-AE and ACE-AE, sE-Selectin, Tie-2, and VE-Cadherin were significantly increased, whereas for Ang-2 the difference was significant compared to CSU-AE only. Tie-2 correlated strongly negatively with C4, C1-INH activity, and C1-INH function. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to compare HAE, ACE-AE, and CSU-AE. Although significance is limited by small sample size, Tie-2 was identified as a new promising biomarker candidate for HAE. FAP- α and tPA might serve as a marker for AE in general, whereas sE-selectin and Ang-2 were increased in BK-AE only. Our results add information to the role of endothelial dysfunction and serine proteases in different AE subtypes.

Management of suspected and confirmed COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccine hypersensitivity.

BACKGROUND: Systemic allergic reactions to vaccines are very rare. In this study we assessed the management and outcome of suspected SARS-CoV-2 vaccine hypersensitivity. METHODS: Totally, 334 individuals underwent an allergy work up regarding SARS-CoV-2 vaccination (group A: 115 individuals suspected to be at increased risk for vaccine-related reactions before vaccination and group B: 219 patients with reactions after COVID vaccination). The large majority of the SPT/IDT with the vaccines were negative; however, we identified in 14.1% (n = 47) a possible sensitization to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and/or its ingredients defined as one positive skin test. Of the 219 individuals (group B) who experienced symptoms suspicious for a hypersensitivity reaction after vaccination, 214 were reported after the first vaccination with a mRNA vaccine (157 mRNA (Comirnaty®, 38 Spikevax®) and 18 with a vector vaccine (Vaxzevria®), 5 cases were after the second vaccination. RESULTS: The symptom profile in group B was as follows: skin symptoms occurred in 115 cases (n = 59 angioedema, n = 50 generalized urticaria and n = 23 erythema/flush. Seventy individuals had cardiovascular, 53 respiratory and 17 gastrointestinal symptoms. Of the overall 334 individuals, 78 patients tolerated (re)-vaccination (out of skin test positive/negative 7/19 from group A and 17/35 from group B). CONCLUSION: Proven IgE-mediated hypersensitivity to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines is extremely rare and not increased in comparison with reported hypersensitivity to other vaccines. The value of skin tests is unclear and nonspecific reactions, in particular when intradermal testing is applied, should be considered.

Phenotype and risk factors of venom-induced anaphylaxis: A case-control study of the European Anaphylaxis Registry.

BACKGROUND: Venom-induced anaphylaxis (VIA) is a common, potentially life-threatening hypersensitivity reaction associated with (1) a specific symptom profile, 2) specific cofactors, and 3) specific management. Identifying the differences in phenotypes of anaphylaxis is crucial for future management guidelines and development of a personalized medicine approach. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the phenotype and risk factors of VIA. METHODS: Using data from the European Anaphylaxis Registry (12,874 cases), we identified 3,612 patients with VIA and analyzed their cases in comparison with sex- and age-matched anaphylaxis cases triggered by other elicitors (non-VIA cases [n = 3,605]). RESULTS: VIA more frequently involved more than 3 organ systems and was associated with cardiovascular symptoms. The absence of skin symptoms during anaphylaxis was correlated with baseline serum tryptase level and was associated with an increased risk of a severe reaction. Intramuscular or intravenous epinephrine was administered significantly less often in VIA, in particular, in patients without a history of anaphylaxis. A baseline serum tryptase level within the upper normal range (8-11.5 ng/mL) was more frequently associated with severe anaphylaxis. CONCLUSION: Using a large cohort of VIA cases, we have validated that patients with intermediate baseline serum tryptase levels (8-11 ng/mL) and without skin involvement have a higher risk of severe VIA. Patients receiving ß-blockers or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors had a higher risk of developing severe cardiovascular symptoms (including cardiac arrest) in VIA and non-VIA cases. Patients experiencing VIA received epinephrine less frequently than did cases with non-VIA.