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.

Real-world data: A relevant component in the framework of scientific evidence.

Explanatory randomized controlled clinical trials test hypotheses to see if the intervention causes an outcome of interest in optimal circumstances, that is, established by selecting patients based on inclusion and exclusion criteria and controlled environments. They assess the "efficacy" of an intervention. On the contrary, it is crucial for society to address issues related to real-world clinical practices. This need can be fulfilled by real-world studies. We discuss the challenges in obtaining real-world evidence in asthma, debating the importance of including patients who are typically excluded from randomized controlled clinical trials to ensure the generalizability of the results. We conclude by discussing the integration of real-world evidence in guidelines and the need for standard rules to use real-world evidence in guidelines.

Mast Cells in Upper and Lower Airway Diseases: Sentinels in the Front Line.

Mast cells (MCs) are fascinating cells of the innate immune system involved not only in allergic reaction but also in tissue homeostasis, response to infection, wound healing, protection against kidney injury, the effects of pollution and, in some circumstances, cancer. Indeed, exploring their role in respiratory allergic diseases would give us, perhaps, novel therapy targets. Based on this, there is currently a great demand for therapeutic regimens to enfeeble the damaging impact of MCs in these pathological conditions. Several strategies can accomplish this at different levels in response to MC activation, including targeting individual mediators released by MCs, blockade of receptors for MC-released compounds, inhibition of MC activation, limiting mast cell growth, or inducing mast cell apoptosis. The current work focuses on and summarizes the mast cells' role in pathogenesis and as a personalized treatment target in allergic rhinitis and asthma; even these supposed treatments are still at the preclinical stage.

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.

Migraine, Brain Glucose Metabolism and the "Neuroenergetic" Hypothesis: A Scoping Review.

Increasing evidence suggests that migraine may be the result of an impaired brain glucose metabolism. Several studies have reported brain mitochondrial dysfunction, impaired brain glucose metabolism and gray matter volume reduction in specific brain areas of migraineurs. Furthermore, peripheral insulin resistance, a condition demonstrated in several studies, may extend to the brain, leading to brain insulin resistance. This condition has been proven to downregulate insulin receptors, both in astrocytes and neurons, triggering a reduction in glucose uptake and glycogen synthesis, mainly during high metabolic demand. This scoping review examines the clinical, epidemiologic and pathophysiologic data supporting the hypothesis that abnormalities in brain glucose metabolism may generate a mismatch between the brain's energy reserve and metabolic expenditure, triggering migraine attacks. Moreover, alteration in glucose homeostasis could generate a chronic brain energy deficit promoting migraine chronification. Lastly, insulin resistance may link migraine with its comorbidities, like obesity, depression, cognitive impairment and cerebrovascular diseases. PERSPECTIVE: Although additional experimental studies are needed to support this novel "neuroenergetic" hypothesis, brain insulin resistance in migraineurs may unravel the pathophysiological mechanisms of the disease, explaining the migraine chronification and connecting migraine with comorbidities. Therefore, this hypothesis could elucidate novel potential approaches for migraine treatment.