RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Biologic therapies play a crucial role in the treatment of severe asthma. Tezepelumab, a human monoclonal antibody (mAb), inhibits thymic stromal lymphopoietin, a pivotal factor in the pathophysiology of asthma. Although randomized clinical trials have demonstrated the efficacy of Tezepelumab, evidence gaps remain in real-world scenarios. OBJECTIVE: We sought investigate Tezepelumab's response in a clinical setting, focusing on patients who previously failed to other asthma mAbs. METHODS: Real-life study with severe uncontrolled asthma patients despite mAb treatment, requiring a switch to Tezepelumab. Follow-up was done four to six months after initiation of Tezepelumab. The primary endpoint was to evaluate the response in patients with poor response or intolerance to other mAbs. RESULTS: Nine patients were followed up during 7 months. Patients were predominantly middle-aged females with eosinophilic or eosinophilic-allergic phenotypes. Patients had a median failure rate of 2 mAbs (IQR 2-3), with an uncontrolled asthma (median of 2 severe exacerbations the previous year, airflow obstruction and 78% corticosteroid dependence). Tezepelumab demonstrated after 4 to 6 months of treatment reduce corticosteroid dependence (complete withdrawal in 2/7 patients), no exacerbations in 6/9, symptoms control improvement (Asthma Control Test score improved in 5/9) and modulate lung function (improving in 3/9 patients). These findings align with clinical trial results, suggesting Tezepelumab's potential in real-world settings. CONCLUSION: In real-world scenarios, despite the study's limitations, our results underscore Tezepelumab's promise as a therapeutic option for uncontrolled severe asthma, and may be useful for non-responders to other mAbs. Further studies are needed to corroborate these findings.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Meropenem is a widely prescribed beta-lactam for hospitalized patients. There are few data on meropenem allergy assessments in inpatients with a reported history of penicillin allergy who require a treatment with meropenem. This can lead to the use of less effective second-line antibiotics that may increase antibiotic resistances. We aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of a meropenem allergy assessment in admitted patients with a reported history of penicillin allergy that required meropenem for the treatment of an acute infection. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed on 182 inpatients labelled with a penicillin-allergy who received meropenem after an allergy assessment. The allergy study was performed bedside if meropenem was required urgently. The study included skin prick tests (SPTs) followed by an intradermal skin test (IDT) to meropenem, and a meropenem drug challenge test (DCT). If a non-immediate reaction to a beta-lactam was suspected, it was initiated with patch tests. RESULTS: The median age of the patients was 59.7 years (range 28-95) and 80 (44%) were women. A total of 196 sets of diagnostic workups were performed, with 189 (96.4%) of them being tolerated. Only two patients had a positive meropenem IV DCT, both presenting a non-severe cutaneous reaction that completely resolved after treatment. CONCLUSIONS: This study evidenced that a bedside meropenem allergy assessment of hospitalized patients labelled with a 'penicillin allergy' who require a broad-spectrum antibiotic for empiric coverage is a safe and effective procedure, avoiding the use of second-line antimicrobial agents.