Hereditary angioedema: current therapeutic management and future approaches.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The aim of this review is to provide an account of the focus of therapeutic strategies for hereditary angioedema (HAE), give a brief overview of those used in the past and set aside and toughly discuss those currently available as first line. Further research is ongoing and the future therapeutic approaches that are still in different phases of study will be reviewed as well. RECENT FINDINGS: In the last two decades, major research advancements on HAE pathophysiology and management were made and numerous novel therapeutic options are now available. Compared to the past, drugs available nowadays are more effective, well tolerated, and possibly have a more convenient administration route. Moreover, numerous other drugs with innovative mechanisms of action are under development. SUMMARY: HAE is a rare genetic disease that if not promptly treated, it can lead to death from asphyxiation. Furthermore, due to its disfiguring and painful manifestations, HAE implies an important burden on the quality of life. Recently, following great research progresses on HAE therapy, evidence-based guidelines on HAE management were released. The therapeutic landscape of HAE is still under florid development, and it is possible novel treatments will remarkably revolutionize HAE management in the future.

Sleep quality burden in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps and its modulation by dupilumab.

BACKGROUND: Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) is associated with a substantial burden on patients' quality of life and impaired sleep quality. The most common CRSwNP endotype is characterized by type 2 inflammation, with enhanced production of interleukin (IL)-4, IL-5, and IL-13. Dupilumab is a monoclonal antibody against IL-4 receptor-α, which inhibits both IL-4 and IL-13 signaling, and was recently approved for treatment of CRSwNP. OBJECTIVE: We investigated the effect of dupilumab on the sleep quality of patients with CRSwNP in a real-life setting. METHODS: Patients were evaluated at baseline and after 1 and 3 months of dupilumab treatment by means of the Epworth sleepiness scale (ESS), insomnia severity index (ISI), Pittsburgh sleep quality index (PSQI), and sinonasal outcome test 22 (SNOT-22) sleep domain. RESULTS: A total of 29 consecutive patients were enrolled, and their baseline sleep quality assessment were as follows: ESS of 7.9 (± 4.5); ISI of 13.1 (± 6.2); PSQI of 9.2 (± 3.7); and SNOT-22 sleep domain of 12.1 (± 4.2). Excessive daily sleepiness, insomnia, and globally impaired sleep quality were present in 24.1%, 79.3%, and 93.1% respectively. Treatment with dupilumab was associated with significant improvement in ESS, ISI, PSQI, and SNOT-22 sleep domain with concomitant reduction of the proportion of patients with insomnia and globally impaired sleep quality. CONCLUSION: CRSwNP was associated with a significant impact on global sleep quality, in particular, insomnia, and treatment with dupilumab induced a rapid improvement (after 1 single month of treatment) in all the sleep quality parameters, suggesting that sleep disturbances should be more carefully evaluated as an additional outcome in these patients.

The Prevalence of Immediate Hypersensitivity Reactions to the BNT162b2 mRNA Vaccine against SARS-CoV-2: Data from the Vaccination Campaign in a Large Academic Hospital.

The anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination has probably been the most effective tool for preventing the infection and negative outcomes of the COVID-19 disease, and therefore for interrupting the pandemic state. The first licensed SARS-CoV-2 vaccine was BNT162b2, an mRNA vaccine that has been widely used since the earliest stages of the global vaccination campaign. Since the beginning of the vaccination campaign, some cases of suspected allergic reactions to BNT162b2 have been described. Epidemiological data, however, have provided reassuring results of an extremely low prevalence of these hypersensitivity reactions to anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. In this article, we describe the results of a survey carried out through the use of a questionnaire, administered to all the health personnel of our university hospital after the first two doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine, which investigated the development of adverse reactions after a vaccination. We analyzed the responses of 3112 subjects subjected to the first dose of the vaccine; among these, 1.8% developed symptoms compatible with allergic reactions and 0.9% with clinical manifestations of possible anaphylaxis. Only 10.3% of the subjects who had allergic reactions after the first injection experienced similar reactions after the second dose and none of them experienced anaphylaxis. In conclusion, the anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination is rarely associated with severe allergic reactions and the second dose of vaccine is safe for this group of patients.

Desensitization Protocols for Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines in Patients with High Risk of Allergic Reactions.

Vaccines for SAR-CoV-2 are the most effective preventive treatment able to reduce the risk of contracting the infection and experiencing worse outcomes whenever the infection is contracted. Despite their rarity, hypersensitivity reactions to the anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine have been described and could become the reason not to complete the vaccination. Desensitization protocols for other vaccines have been described and validated, while the use of this approach for anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccines is still anecdotal. We herein describe our experience with 30 patients with previous allergic reactions to anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccines or to any of their excipients, proving that they are effective and safe; only two patients experienced hypersensitivity reaction symptoms during the desensitization procedure. Moreover, in this article, we propose desensitization protocols for the most common anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccines.

Polyethylene Glycol and Polysorbate 80 Skin Tests in the Context of an Allergic Risk Assessment for Hypersensitivity Reactions to Anti-SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccines.

Concern has arisen about hypersensitivity reactions in patients with allergic reactions to drugs containing polyethylene glycol (PEG) or polysorbate 80 (PS80), excipients of currently available anti-SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines. However, the actual utility of PEG and PS80 skin allergy testing is currently still debated. We retrospectively analyzed all cases of patients on whom we performed allergometric skin tests for PEG and PS80 in the context of a pre-vaccination screening (for patients with multiple hypersensitivity reactions to drugs for which these excipients were among the suspected agents) or following suspected hypersensitivity reactions to anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. A total of 134 tests were performed for PEG and PS80, eight of which produced uninterpretable results (due to dermographism or non-specific reactions). Of the remaining 126 cases (85 pre-vaccinal and 41 post-vaccine reactions), 16 (12.7%) were positive for PEG and/or PS80. Stratifying by clinical indication, there were no statistically significant differences in the proportion of positive tests between patients evaluated in the context of the pre-vaccination screening and those evaluated after a vaccine reaction (10.6% vs. 17.1%, respectively, p = 0.306). Allergometric skin tests for PEG and PS80 in our case series resulted positive in an unexpectedly high proportion of patients, suggesting that testing for allergy to these two excipients should not be ignored in case of reasonable clinical suspicion.

Cofactors, age at onset, allergic comorbidities and gender are different in patients sensitized to omega-5 gliadin and Pru p 3.

Aim of this study is to clarify the impact of cofactors on allergic reactions in patients sensitized to LTP and ω-5-gliadin. We retrospectively examined the charts of our outpatients from January 2015 to July 2019 and identified 157 patients seen for urticaria/angioedema or anaphylaxis after a meal, in presence or absence of cofactors and sensitized to LTPs (Pru p 3 and/or Tri a 14) and/or ω-5-gliadin (Tri a 19). we compared LTPs-positive patients and those sensitized to Tri a 19 in order to assess the difference in cofactors involved and in frequency of clinical presentation. Our data show that exercise is the most frequent cofactor in FDEIAn and the involvement of exercise, alcohol and multiple cofactors was more frequently found in males than in females. We found that exercise, pollen counts peaks and multiple cofactors were more often related to anaphylaxis than mild reactions. Finally, we performed a comparison between patients LTPs+ and Tri a 19+ that showed in the latter group a lower frequency of allergic comorbidities, a higher median age at the onset of symptoms and frequency of alcohol exposure. Our data show that the search for possible cofactors involved in food allergy is essential not only for diagnostic purposes, but also for risk assessment strategies.

Nasal cytology as a reliable non-invasive procedure to phenotype patients with type 2 chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps.

Background: The identification of type-2 inflammation in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) acquires a crucial role in the endotypization needed for selecting patients for biological drugs targeting type-2 inflammation: to date, the parameters used include systemic and histological biomarkers. The aim of this study was to investigate whether nasal cytology could identify type-2 inflammation in patients with CRSwNP. Methodology: Thirty-three consecutive patients with CRSwNP underwent nasal cytology sampling at the level of the lower nasal turbinate, and of the polypoid tissue, and surgical polyp tissue sample was collected. The cellularity of the 3 collected samples were compared. Results: Mean nasal polyp tissue, nasal polyps cytology and inferior turbinate cytology eosinophils counts were 43.7 ± 39.6 cells/HPF, 32.8 ± 44.7 cells/HPF and 27.6 ± 58.0 cells/HPF respectively with inferior turbinate cytology eosinophils significantly lower than nasal polyp tissue count (p = 0.007). Both mean nasal polyps cytology eosinophils and mean inferior turbinate cytology eosinophils were significantly higher in patients with type-2 CRSwNP (52.5 ± 67.0 cells/HPF vs 12.2 ± 17.3 cells/HPF, p = 0.012, and 32.0 ± 62.1 cells/HPF vs 2.9 ± 2.9 cells/HPF, p = 0.020 respectively). Conclusions: Nasal cytology is suitable tool for assessing local biomarkers of type-2 inflammation in CRSwNP.

Type 2 Inflammation in Eosinophilic Esophagitis: From Pathophysiology to Therapeutic Targets.

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic immune-mediated disease of the esophagus characterized clinically by symptoms related to esophageal dysfunction and histologically by eosinophil-predominant inflammation, whose incidence is rising. It significantly affects patients' quality of life and, if left untreated, results in fibrotic complications. Although broad consensus has been achieved on first-line therapy, a subset of patients remains non-responder to standard therapy. The pathogenesis of EoE is multifactorial and results from the complex, still mostly undefined, interaction between genetics and intrinsic factors, environment, and antigenic stimuli. A deep understanding of the pathophysiology of this disease is pivotal for the development of new therapies. This review provides a comprehensive description of the pathophysiology of EoE, starting from major pathogenic mechanisms (genetics, type 2 inflammation, epithelial barrier dysfunction, gastroesophageal reflux, allergens, infections and microbiota) and subsequently focusing on the single protagonists of type 2 inflammation (involved cells, cytokines, soluble effectors, surface proteins and transcription factors) that could represent present and future therapeutic targets, while summarizing previous therapeutic approaches in literature.