RESUMEN
Atorvastatin (ATO) is of the statin class and is used as an orally administered lipid-lowering drug. ATO is a reversible synthetic competitive inhibitor of 3-hydroxy-3-methyl-glutaryl-CoA (HMG-CoA) reductase thus leading to a reduction in cholesterol synthesis. It has recently been demonstrated that ATO has different pharmacological actions, which are unrelated to its lipid-lowering effects and has the ability to treat chronic airway diseases. This paper reviews the potential of ATO as an anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, and anti-proliferative agent after oral or inhaled administration. This paper discusses the advantages and disadvantages of using ATO under conditions associated with those found in the airways. This treatment could potentially be used to support the formulating of ATO as an inhaler for the treatment of chronic respiratory diseases.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Current literature is inconsistent regarding the risk of severe side effects using accelerated induction protocols in Hymenoptera venom immunotherapy (VIT). In addition, several data indicate the influence of purity grade of venom preparation on tolerability. We evaluated the safety and tolerability of ultra-rush and rush build-up protocols using purified and non-purified venom preparations. METHODS: Retrospective single-center study of 581 VIT inductions (325 ultra-rush and 256 rush protocols) from 2005 to 2018 in 559 patients with bee and vespid venom allergy using aqueous purified (ALK SQ®) for ultra-rush protocol and aqueous non-purified (ALK Reless®) venom preparations for rush protocol. RESULTS: Urticaria (8% vs. 3.1%, p = 0,013) and dose reductions (4.3% vs. 1.2%, p = 0,026) were significantly more frequent in the ultra-rush group. Overall rate of moderate-to-severe side effects (anaphylaxis ≥ grade 2 according to Ring and Meßmer) was low and did not differ significantly between protocols (p = 0.105). Severe events (grade 4 anaphylaxis) were not reported. Discontinuation rate was very low in both cohorts (0.6% vs 1.2%). The higher purity grade of venom preparations in the ultra-rush cohort did not improve tolerability. The bee venom group showed a non-significant trend towards higher incidence of mild reactions (urticaria), resulting in more frequent dose reductions and antiallergic therapy. CONCLUSION: Rush and ultra-rush protocols show an excellent safety profile with only infrequent and mild anaphylactic reactions in bee and vespid venom allergy. Ultra-rush immunotherapy reduces the duration of the inpatient build-up phase setting and thus is viewed by the authors as preferred treatment in Hymenoptera venom allergic patients.