Anaphylaxis: A 2023 practice parameter update.

This practice parameter update focuses on 7 areas in which there are new evidence and new recommendations. Diagnostic criteria for anaphylaxis have been revised, and patterns of anaphylaxis are defined. Measurement of serum tryptase is important for diagnosis of anaphylaxis and to identify underlying mast cell disorders. In infants and toddlers, age-specific symptoms may differ from older children and adults, patient age is not correlated with reaction severity, and anaphylaxis is unlikely to be the initial reaction to an allergen on first exposure. Different community settings for anaphylaxis require specific measures for prevention and treatment of anaphylaxis. Optimal prescribing and use of epinephrine autoinjector devices require specific counseling and training of patients and caregivers, including when and how to administer the epinephrine autoinjector and whether and when to call 911. If epinephrine is used promptly, immediate activation of emergency medical services may not be required if the patient experiences a prompt, complete, and durable response. For most medical indications, the risk of stopping or changing beta-blocker or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor medication may exceed the risk of more severe anaphylaxis if the medication is continued, especially in patients with insect sting anaphylaxis. Evaluation for mastocytosis, including a bone marrow biopsy, should be considered for adult patients with severe insect sting anaphylaxis or recurrent idiopathic anaphylaxis. After perioperative anaphylaxis, repeat anesthesia may proceed in the context of shared decision-making and based on the history and results of diagnostic evaluation with skin tests or in vitro tests when available, and supervised challenge when necessary.

Atopic dermatitis (eczema) guidelines: 2023 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology/American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters GRADE- and Institute of Medicine-based recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Guidance addressing atopic dermatitis (AD) management, last issued in 2012 by the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology/American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology Joint Task Force, requires updating as a result of new treatments and improved guideline and evidence synthesis methodology. OBJECTIVE: To produce evidence-based guidelines that support patients, clinicians, and other decision-makers in the optimal treatment of AD. METHODS: A multidisciplinary guideline panel consisting of patients and caregivers, AD experts (dermatology and allergy/immunology), primary care practitioners (family medicine, pediatrics, internal medicine), and allied health professionals (psychology, pharmacy, nursing) convened, prioritized equity, diversity, and inclusiveness, and implemented management strategies to minimize influence of conflicts of interest. The Evidence in Allergy Group supported guideline development by performing systematic evidence reviews, facilitating guideline processes, and holding focus groups with patient and family partners. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach informed rating the certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations. Evidence-to-decision frameworks, subjected to public comment, translated evidence to recommendations using trustworthy guideline principles. RESULTS: The panel agreed on 25 recommendations to gain and maintain control of AD for patients with mild, moderate, and severe AD. The eAppendix provides practical information and implementation considerations in 1-2 page patient-friendly handouts. CONCLUSION: These evidence-based recommendations address optimal use of (1) topical treatments (barrier moisturization devices, corticosteroids, calcineurin inhibitors, PDE4 inhibitors [crisaborole], topical JAK inhibitors, occlusive [wet wrap] therapy, adjunctive antimicrobials, application frequency, maintenance therapy), (2) dilute bleach baths, (3) dietary avoidance/elimination, (4) allergen immunotherapy, and (5) systemic treatments (biologics/monoclonal antibodies, small molecule immunosuppressants [cyclosporine, methotrexate, azathioprine, mycophenolate, JAK inhibitors], and systemic corticosteroids) and UV phototherapy (light therapy).

Nasal allergen challenge (NAC): Practical aspects and applications from an EU/US perspective-a Work Group Report of the AAAAI Rhinitis, Rhinosinusitis and Ocular Allergy Committee.

Nasal allergen challenge (NAC) is applied in a variety of settings (research centers, specialty clinics, and hospitals) as a useful diagnostic and research tool. NAC is indicated for diagnosis of seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis, local allergic rhinitis, and occupational rhinitis; to design the composition of allergen immunotherapy in patients who are polysensitized; and to investigate the physio-pathological mechanisms of nasal diseases. NAC is currently a safe and reproducible technique, although it is time- and resource-consuming. NAC can be performed by a variety of methods, but the lack of a uniform technique for performing and recording the outcomes represents a challenge for those considering NAC as a clinical tool in the office. The availability of standardized allergens for NAC is also different in each country. The objective of this workgroup report is to review the current information about NAC, focusing on the practical aspects and application for diagnosis of difficult rhinitis phenotypes (eg, local allergic rhinitis, occupational rhinitis), taking into account the particular context of practice in the United States and the European Union.

The Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters GRADE guidelines for the medical management of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis.

These evidence-based guidelines support patients, clinicians, and other stakeholders in decisions about the use of intranasal corticosteroids (INCS), biologics, and aspirin therapy after desensitization (ATAD) for the management of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP). It is important to note that the current evidence on surgery for CRSwNP was not assessed for this guideline nor were management options other than INCS, biologics, and ATAD. The Allergy-Immunology Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel balanced to include the views of multiple stakeholders and to minimize potential biases. Systematic reviews for each management option informed the guideline. The guideline panel used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to inform and develop recommendations. The guideline panel reached consensus on the following statements: (1) In people with CRSwNP, the guideline panel suggests INCS rather than no INCS (conditional recommendation, low certainty of evidence). (2) In people with CRSwNP, the guideline panel suggests biologics rather than no biologics (conditional recommendation, moderate certainty of evidence). (3) In people with aspirin (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug)-exacerbated respiratory disease, the guideline panel suggests ATAD rather than no ATAD (conditional recommendation, moderate certainty of evidence). The conditions for each recommendation are discussed in the guideline.

Updated guidance regarding the risk of allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines and recommended evaluation and management: A GRADE assessment and international consensus approach.

This guidance updates 2021 GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) recommendations regarding immediate allergic reactions following coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines and addresses revaccinating individuals with first-dose allergic reactions and allergy testing to determine revaccination outcomes. Recent meta-analyses assessed the incidence of severe allergic reactions to initial COVID-19 vaccination, risk of mRNA-COVID-19 revaccination after an initial reaction, and diagnostic accuracy of COVID-19 vaccine and vaccine excipient testing in predicting reactions. GRADE methods informed rating the certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations. A modified Delphi panel consisting of experts in allergy, anaphylaxis, vaccinology, infectious diseases, emergency medicine, and primary care from Australia, Canada, Europe, Japan, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States formed the recommendations. We recommend vaccination for persons without COVID-19 vaccine excipient allergy and revaccination after a prior immediate allergic reaction. We suggest against >15-minute postvaccination observation. We recommend against mRNA vaccine or excipient skin testing to predict outcomes. We suggest revaccination of persons with an immediate allergic reaction to the mRNA vaccine or excipients be performed by a person with vaccine allergy expertise in a properly equipped setting. We suggest against premedication, split-dosing, or special precautions because of a comorbid allergic history.

Self-contained underwater breathing apparatus diving and asthma: Where are we in 2023?

Asthma is a risk factor for an adverse event while diving utilizing self-contained breathing apparatus (SCUBA). There are various consensus-based recommendations suggesting criteria to evaluate a person with asthma and allow safe SCUBA diving. A systematic review of the medical literature using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) was published in 2016 and concluded there is limited evidence, but subjects with asthma are likely at increased risk of adverse if events if participating in SCUBA. This previous review also included there are insufficient data to inform the decision for a specific patient with asthma to dive. The search strategy used in 2016 was repeated in 2022 and is reported in this article. The conclusions are the same. Suggestions for the clinician are provided to assist in the shared decision-making discussion related to an asthma patient's request to participate in recreational SCUBA diving.

Real-world severe asthma biologic administration and adherence differs by biologic: CHRONICLE study results.

BACKGROUND: Patient adherence to biologic therapies is crucial for clinical benefits. Previous assessments of US patient adherence to severe asthma (SA) biologic therapies have relied on health care insurance claims data that have limitations. OBJECTIVE: To describe real-world, specialist-reported, biologic administration and adherence among US adults with SA. METHODS: CHRONICLE (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03373045) is an ongoing real-world, noninterventional study of patients with SA treated by US subspecialists. Sites report date and location for all biologic administrations. We evaluated biologic (benralizumab, dupilumab, mepolizumab, omalizumab, reslizumab) adherence as the proportion of days covered (PDC) during the first 52 weeks and the mean number of days until patients received the expected number of doses for 13, 26, and 52 weeks of treatment. RESULTS: A total of 2117 patients received biologic administrations between February 2018 and February 2022. Most patients (84%) received biologic administrations at a subspecialist site. Over time, administrations at specialist sites decreased, whereas at-home administrations increased. The median PDC was 87%; the mean number of days to receive a 52-week (364-day) equivalent number of doses was 423 for all biologics (average delay of 58 days). Dupilumab had the lowest PDC and highest mean delays in dosing across all intervals; better adherence was observed among commercially insured patients. CONCLUSION: Patients with SA are mostly adherent to biologic therapies. Biologics with shorter dosing intervals and at-home administration had worse adherence, likely because of greater opportunities for delays. Specialist-reported administration data provide a unique perspective on biologic adherence, which may be overestimated for at-home administrations by insurance claims data. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03373045.

Topical corticosteroids for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis: GRADE systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP) is associated with a significant disease burden. The optimal use of and administration route for intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) when managing CRSwNP are unclear. OBJECTIVE: We systematically synthesized the evidence addressing INCS for CRSwNP. METHODS: We searched studies archived in Medline, Embase, and Central from database inception until September 1, 2021, for randomized controlled trials comparing INCS using any delivery method to placebo or other INCS administration types. Paired reviewers screened records, abstracted data, and rated risk of bias (CLARITY revision of Cochrane Risk of Bias version 1 tool) independently and in duplicate. We synthesized the evidence for each outcome using random effects network meta-analyses. We critically appraised the evidence following the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. RESULTS: We analyzed 61 randomized controlled trials (7176 participants, 8 interventions). Sinusitis-related quality of life might improve with INCS rinse (mean difference [MD] -6.83, 95% confidence interval [CI] -11.94 to -1.71) and exhalation delivery system (EDS) (MD -7.86, 95% CI -14.64 to -1.08) compared to placebo (both low certainty evidence). Nasal obstruction symptoms are likely improved when receiving INCS via stent/dressing (MD -0.31, 95% CI -0.54 to -0.08), spray (MD -0.51, 95% CI -0.61 to -0.41), and EDS (MD -0.35, 95% CI -0.51 to -0.18) (all moderate to high certainty) compared to placebo. We found no important differences in adverse effects among interventions (moderate certainty for INCS spray, very low to low certainty for others). CONCLUSIONS: Multiple delivery forms of INCS are viable therapeutic options for CRSwNP, resulting in improvement of patient-important outcomes. INCS via stent, spray, and EDS appear to be beneficial across the widest range of considered outcomes.

Biologic use and outcomes among adults with severe asthma treated by US subspecialists.

BACKGROUND: Multiple biologics are now available for severe asthma (SA) treatment and can improve outcomes for patients. However, few available data describe the real-world use and effectiveness of multiple approved biologics, including biologic switching, among subspecialists in the United States. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate biologic use and associated exacerbation outcomes in a large cohort of subspecialist-treated US adults with SA. METHODS: CHRONICLE is an ongoing, noninterventional study of subspecialist-treated US adults with SA receiving biologics, maintenance systemic corticosteroids, or those persistently uncontrolled by high-dose inhaled corticosteroids with additional controllers. For enrolled patients, sites report asthma exacerbations and medication use starting 12 months before enrollment. For patients enrolled between February 2018 and February 2021, biologic use and exacerbation outcomes before and after biologic initiation are described. RESULTS: Among 2793 enrolled patients, 66% (n = 1832) were receiving biologics. The most used biologic (> 1 biologic use per patient allowed) was omalizumab (47%), followed by benralizumab (27%), mepolizumab (26%), dupilumab (18%), and reslizumab (3%). Overall, 16% of patients had biologic switches, 13% had stops, and 89% had ongoing biologic use. Patients starting and switching biologics experienced a 58% (1.80 vs 0.76 per patient-year) and 49% (1.47 vs 0.75 per patient-year) reduction in exacerbations, respectively (both P < .001), with a numerically greater reduction observed among those starting non-anti-immunoglobulin E biologics compared with anti-immunoglobulin E. CONCLUSION: Real-world starting and switching of biologic therapies for SA were associated with meaningful reductions in exacerbations. With increasing biologic options available, individualized approaches to therapy may improve patient outcomes. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03373045.

Clinical implications of asthma endotypes and phenotypes.

Background: Asthma is a complex disorder with variable clinical expression. Recognizable clinical and laboratory features define phenotypes, and specific biologic pathways define endotypes. Identifying the specific pathway responsible for persistent asthma would enable the clinician to select the optimal inhibitors, which currently are biologic therapies. Objective: To provide an up-to-date review of the current clinical status of endotype and phenotype characterizations of asthma and discuss these categories in relation to the available, or likely available, biologic therapies for asthma. Methods: The medical literature was reviewed based on the search terms: asthma biologics, severe asthma, uncontrolled asthma, corticosteroid-dependent asthma, phenotype, endotype, and type 2. We also used our knowledge of the literature and current research. Results: All of the current biologics, including the recently approved tezepelumab, were most effective with increased type 2 biomarkers, which identify exacerbation-prone asthma. Current biomarkers do not permit consistent identification of specific endotypes to facilitate informed selection of the optimal therapy for an individual patient. Thus, empiricism and the art of care continue to play major roles in treatment selection. Conclusion: Current biologic therapies for asthma and those likely to be U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved within the near future work best in subjects with strong type 2 signatures. Available biomarkers and observable characteristics do not enable clinicians to recognize specific endotypes, but rather subphenotypes or overlapping endotypes. The goal of identifying the optimal patient for a specific therapy remains elusive, but worthy of pursuit. In the interim, the availability of an increasing number of treatment options allows the clinician to help most of his or her patients.

Biologic and maintenance systemic corticosteroid therapy among US subspecialist-treated patients with severe asthma.

BACKGROUND: Severe asthma (SA) often requires subspecialist management and treatment with biologic therapies or maintenance systemic corticosteroids (mSCS). OBJECTIVE: To describe contemporary, real-world biologic and mSCS use among US subspecialist-treated patients with SA. METHODS: CHRONICLE is an ongoing, noninterventional study of US adults with SA treated by allergists/immunologists or pulmonologists. Eligible patients are receiving biologics or mSCS or are uncontrolled on high-dosage inhaled corticosteroids with additional controllers. Biologic and mSCS use patterns and patient characteristics were summarized for patients enrolled between February 2018 and February 2019. RESULTS: Among protocol-eligible patients, 58% and 12% were receiving biologics and mSCS, respectively, with 7% receiving both. Among 796 enrolled, most were women (67%), non-Hispanic white (71%), of suburban residence (50%), and had elevated body mass index (median: 31). Respiratory and nonrespiratory comorbidities were highly prevalent. With biologics (n = 557), 51% were anti-immunoglobulin E and 48% were anti-interleukin (IL)-5/IL-5Rα; from May 2018, 76% of initiations were anti-IL-5/IL-5Rα. In patients receiving mSCS, median prednisone-equivalent daily dose was 10 mg. Multivariate logistic regression found that patients of hospital clinics, sites with fewer nonphysician staff, and with a recorded concurrent chronic obstructive pulmonary disease diagnosis were less likely to receive biologics and more likely to receive mSCS. CONCLUSION: In this real-world sample of US subspecialist-treated patients with SA not controlled by high-dosage inhaled corticosteroids with additional controllers, mSCS use was infrequent and biologic use was common, with similar prevalence of anti-immunoglobulin E and anti-IL-5/IL-5Rα biologics. Treatment differences associated with patient and site characteristics should be investigated to ensure equitable access to biologics and minimize mSCS use. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03373045.

Plasma levels of TNF-α, IL-6, IFN-γ, IL-12, IL-17, IL-22, and IL-23 in achalasia, eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).

An elevation of serum inflammatory biomarkers in achalasia patients compared with controls recently was demonstrated. It has not been determined whether the elevation of inflammatory cytokines is unique to achalasia or occurs with other diseases involving the esophagus. The primary aim of our study was to compare the differences in plasma immunological profiles (TNF- α receptor, IL-6, IFN-γ, IL-12, IL-17, IL-22, and IL-23) of patients with achalasia, eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). A secondary aim of this study was to classify these same plasma cytokine profiles in the three achalasia subtypes. METHODS: Plasma from 53 patients with achalasia, 22 with EoE, and 20 with GERD (symptoms plus esophagitis or + reflux study) were analyzed. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: malignancy, autoimmune condition, immunodeficiency disorder, and treatment with steroids/immune modulating drugs. Cytokine levels were assayed via multiplex enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). RESULTS: Our key finding revealed significant elevations in IL- 6 (p = 0.0158) in achalasia patients compared with EoE patients. Overall, plasma inflammatory biomarker patterns were not different in the three subtypes of achalasia. CONCLUSION: There were no differences between the cytokine levels of any of the measured biomarkers between the achalasia and GERD groups suggesting that luminal stasis does increase biomarker levels for any of the cytokines examined in our study. While these results are an early first step towards clarifying some aspects of the pathogenesis of achalasia, they bring about many more questions that require further investigation and expansion. Further investigation with a larger cohort and a broader panel of biomarkers is needed.

Nasal and ocular challenges.

Nasal and ocular challenges facilitate the evaluation of subjective and objective responses to defined allergen or irritant exposure. Nasal and ocular allergen challenges are the gold standard to diagnose allergic rhinitis and conjunctivitis, respectively, and aid in the evaluation of novel therapies in clinical trials. Additionally, nasal and ocular allergen challenges might help identify medically relevant allergens in clinical practice. Nonspecific or irritant challenges evaluate mucosal hyperreactivity. Direct mucosal challenges, which can be performed in an office or research setting, expose the participant to higher allergen doses than common in the natural environment. Park studies and environmental chambers, which are most practical in clinical trials, more closely simulate natural allergen exposure. International consensus guidelines for nasal and ocular challenges do not exist. Therefore the positivity criteria, methodologies, and extract or allergen preparations used in challenges vary in the literature. Regardless of these limitations, nasal and ocular challenges are helpful clinical and research tools for nasal and ocular diseases.

Hepatitis B vaccine nonresponders: Possible mechanisms and solutions.

OBJECTIVE: Hepatitis B (HBV) is a viral illness that chronically infects 240 million people worldwide, leads to liver disease, and increases risk of hepatocellular carcinoma. The HBV vaccine has decreased HBV infection, and it and the human papilloma virus vaccine are the only vaccines that prevent cancer. Despite the effectiveness of the HBV vaccine, some populations do not develop protective responses. The risk groups for poor response include those with immunosuppression or dialysis-dependent, end-stage renal disease. Five percent of normal people do not have a response. These subjects are deemed HBV "nonresponders." Multiple strategies to improve the immunogenicity of the HBV vaccine are currently being pursued, including vaccine adjuvants, recombinant vaccines, and immune enhancement via up-regulation of dendritic cells. DATA SOURCES: PubMed was searched for peer-reviewed publications published from January 1980 to September 2017. STUDY SELECTIONS: Studies retrieved for inclusion summarized potential mechanisms behind HBV vaccine nonresponsiveness and potential solutions. RESULTS: The mechanisms behind HBV vaccine nonresponsiveness vary between each subject population. Many current and future strategies may provide protective immunity against HBV in each of these populations. CONCLUSION: This review provides a background on the immunology of HBV infection, the possible immunologic mechanisms to explain HBV vaccine nonresponsiveness, current research aimed at improving vaccine effectiveness, and possible future approaches for providing nonresponders protection from HBV.

A randomized multicenter study evaluating Xolair persistence of response after long-term therapy.

BACKGROUND: Few data are available to assist clinicians with decisions regarding long-term use of asthma therapies, including omalizumab. OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the benefit and persistence of response in subjects continuing or withdrawing from long-term omalizumab treatment. METHODS: Evaluating the Xolair Persistency Of Response After Long-Term Therapy (XPORT) was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled withdrawal study that included subjects with moderate-to-severe persistent asthma receiving long-term omalizumab. Subjects were randomized by using a hierarchical dynamic randomization scheme to continue their same dose of omalizumab or withdraw to placebo and were then followed every 4 weeks for 1 year. The primary outcome was any protocol-defined severe asthma exacerbation. The secondary outcome was time to first protocol-defined severe asthma exacerbation. Exploratory outcomes included changes in Asthma Control Questionnaire and Asthma Control Test scores. RESULTS: Significantly more subjects in the omalizumab group (67%) had no protocol-defined exacerbation than in the placebo group (47.7%); an absolute difference of 19.3% (95% CI, 5.0%, 33.6%) represents a 40.1% relative difference. Time to first protocol-defined exacerbation analysis revealed a significantly different between-group exacerbation pattern that was consistent with the primary analysis. Subjects continuing omalizumab had significantly better asthma control (mean [SD] change from baseline to week 52: Asthma Control Test score, -1.16 [4.14] vs placebo, -2.88 [5.38], P = .0188; Asthma Control Questionnaire score, 0.22 [0.66] vs placebo, 0.63 [1.13], P = .0039). Discontinuation of omalizumab was associated with an increase in free IgE levels and an increase in basophil expression of the high-affinity IgE receptor. No safety concerns were noted. CONCLUSION: Continuation of omalizumab after long-term treatment results in continued benefit, as evidenced by improved symptom control and reduced exacerbation risk.

Corticosteroid-related toxicity in patients with chronic idiopathic urticariachronic spontaneous urticaria.

BACKGROUND: Treatments for patients with chronic idiopathic urticaria (CIU)chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) who were unresponsive to antihistamines include oral corticosteroids (OCS). Risks of OCS-related side effects in these patients have not been described quantitatively. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relationship between OCS use and the risk of developing side effects possibly attributable to OCS and associated health care costs in privately insured patients with CIU/CSU. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study analyzed a commercial claims data base from January 1, 2008, to December 31, 2012. Patients with CIU/CSU were identified by International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes via a validated algorithm. Possible OCS-related side effects included the following: diabetes mellitus, hypertension, lipid disorders, cataracts, depression or mania, osteoporosis or fractures, and infectious diseases. A time-dependent Cox regression (adjusted for age, sex, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and immunomodulator use) was used to separately model cumulative oral prednisone-equivalent exposure and the risk of side effects. Incremental total adjusted health care costs were compared in patients with versus patients without possible OCS-related side effects. RESULTS: Among 12,647 patients with CIU/CSU, 55.4% used OCS. An additional 1 g of prednisone-equivalent exposure was associated with a 7% increase in the likelihood of developing a possible side effect (hazard ratio, 1.07 [95% confidence interval, 1.051.08]). From the period before to the period after OCS initiation, the total mean adjusted annual health care costs increased by 1833 in users of OCS with new possible side effects and decreased by 2183 in patients without new possible side effects (p 0.001). CONCLUSION: Patients with CIU/CSU who were treated with OCS had an increased risk of possible OCS-related side effects and higher total health care costs than their counterparts not treated with OCS.

Endotypes and phenotypes of chronic rhinosinusitis: a PRACTALL document of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology.

Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is a complex disease consisting of several disease variants with different underlying pathophysiologies. Limited knowledge of the mechanisms of these disease subgroups is possibly the greatest obstacle in understanding the causes of CRS and improving treatment. It is generally agreed that there are clinically relevant CRS phenotypes defined by an observable characteristic or trait, such as the presence or absence of nasal polyps. Defining the phenotype of the patient is useful in making therapeutic decisions. However, clinical phenotypes do not provide full insight into all underlying cellular and molecular pathophysiologic mechanisms of CRS. Recognition of the heterogeneity of CRS has promoted the concept that CRS consists of multiple groups of biological subtypes, or "endotypes," which are defined by distinct pathophysiologic mechanisms that might be identified by corresponding biomarkers. Different CRS endotypes can be characterized by differences in responsiveness to different treatments, including topical intranasal corticosteroids and biological agents, such as anti-IL-5 and anti-IgE mAb, and can be based on different biomarkers that are linked to underlying mechanisms. CRS has been regarded as a single disease entity in clinical and genetic studies in the past, which can explain the failure to identify consistent genetic and environmental correlations. In addition, better identification of endotypes might permit individualization of therapy that can be targeted against the pathophysiologic processes of a patient's endotype, with potential for more effective treatment and better patient outcomes.

Omalizumab in patients with symptomatic chronic idiopathic/spontaneous urticaria despite standard combination therapy.

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic idiopathic urticaria/chronic spontaneous urticaria (CIU/CSU) often continue to experience symptoms despite receiving standard-of-care therapy with H1-antihistamines along with 1 or more add-on therapies. OBJECTIVES: We sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of 24 weeks of treatment with omalizumab in patients with persistent CIU/CSU despite treatment with H1-antihistamines at up to 4 times the approved dose plus H2-antihistamines, leukotriene receptor antagonists, or both. METHODS: In this phase III study patients were randomized to receive 6 subcutaneous injections at 4-week intervals of either 300 mg of omalizumab or placebo, followed by a 16-week observation period. The primary objective of the study was to evaluate the overall safety of omalizumab compared with placebo. Efficacy (itch severity, hive, and urticaria activity scores) was evaluated at weeks 12 and 24. RESULTS: The overall incidence and severity of adverse events and serious adverse events were similar between omalizumab and placebo recipients; the safety profile was consistent with omalizumab in patients with allergic asthma. At week 12, the mean change from baseline in weekly itch severity score was -8.6 (95% CI, -9.3 to -7.8) in the omalizumab group compared with -4.0 (95% CI, -5.3 to -2.7) in the placebo group (P < .001). Significant improvements were seen for additional efficacy end points at week 12; these benefits were sustained to week 24. CONCLUSION: Omalizumab was well tolerated and reduced the signs and symptoms of CIU/CSU in patients who remained symptomatic despite the use of H1-antihistamines (up to 4 times the approved dose) plus H2-antihistamines, leukotriene receptor antagonists, or both.