Efficacy and safety of hymenoptera venom immunotherapy.

Background: Being stung by Hymenoptera species can cause life-threatening anaphylaxis. Although venom immunotherapy (VIT) seems to be the most effective treatment, its long-term efficacy, and risk factors for adverse events remain unclear. Objective: The objective was to investigate the long-term efficacy of VIT and evaluate adverse events and risk factors related to this. Method: Patients who received VIT in a tertiary-care adult allergy clinic between January 2005 and July 2022 were included. Patients' data were compared with those of individuals who had been diagnosed with bee and/or wasp venom allergy during the same period but had not received VIT and experienced field re-stings. Results: The study included 105 patients with venom allergy, of whom 68 received VIT and 37 did not receive VIT. Twenty-three patients (34%) completed 5 years of VIT, and the overall mean ± standard deviation VIT duration was 46.9 ± 20.9 months. Re-stings occurred in 5 of 23 patients who completed 5 years of VIT, and none of them developed a systemic reaction. Eighteen patients (40%) experienced re-stings after prematurely discontinuing VIT, of whom eight (44%) developed a systemic reaction. In the control group of patients who did not receive VIT, 26 patients (70.3%) experienced re-stings, and all had systemic reactions (100%), with no change in their median Mueller scores. There was a significant difference in the median Mueller score change between the patients who received VIT and the controls who did not (p = 0.016). A total of 13 patients (19%) experienced adverse events while receiving VIT, which were systemic reactions in nine honeybee VIT. The use of ß-blockers was determined as the most important risk factor (odds ratio 15.9 [95% confidence interval, 1.2-208.8]; p = 0.035). Conclusion: It was confirmed that VIT was effective in both reducing the incidence and the severity of re-sting reactions. These effects were more pronounced in the patients who completed 5 years of VIT.

Comparison of the Efficacy of Omalizumab and Mepolizumab in Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drug-Exacerbated Respiratory Disease.

INTRODUCTION: Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug-exacerbated respiratory disease (N-ERD) is heterogeneous in both phenotypes and endotypes. Due to insufficient head-to-head comparison studies, it is hard to decide which biological to initiate. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of omalizumab and mepolizumab which can be used in the treatment of patients with severe eosinophilic asthma diagnosed with N-ERD. METHODS: The population of this observational, cross-sectional study comprised of N-ERD patients who received omalizumab or mepolizumab for at least 6 months for severe asthma. Outcomes included the asthma control test (ACT), and sino-nasal outcome test scores (SNOT-22), blood eosinophil counts at initiation of biological treatment (T0, baseline) and at the end of 6th months (T6). Adverse effects related to biological treatment and changes of oral corticosteroids dose was recorded. RESULTS: The study included a total of 22 patients, of whom 11 received mepolizumab and 11 received omalizumab. The change in ACT, SNOT-22, eosinophil counts, and adverse effects related to biologicals were similar at T6 (p = 0.606, p = 0.168, p = 0.05, p = 0.053, respectively). However, when examining the SNOT-22 and ACT based on the cumulative distribution curve (SUCRA), mepolizumab (SUCRA value: 0.61, 0.72, respectively) demonstrated greater efficacy compared to omalizumab (SUCRA value: 0.19, 0.35, respectively). The oral corticosteroids discontinuation rate was similar between the two groups (p = 0.05). CONCLUSION: We found both omalizumab and mepolizumab to be effective in treatment; however, we determined that mepolizumab may have a potential superiority in efficacy.

Successful desensitization in a patient with recurrent anaplastic oligodendroglioma presenting with procarbazine-mediated anaphylaxis.

INTRODUCTION: Procarbazine is an oral chemotherapeutic agent used in the treatment of brain malignancies and is associated with hypersensitivity reactions. In case of grade 4 reactions, rechallenge should be avoided, and the agent should be replaced, unless the treatment is curative, in which case the application of a desensitization protocol should be considered. We present a successful case of desensitization in procarbazine anaphylaxis. CASE REPORT: A 53-year-old male patient was diagnosed with recurrent anaplastic oligodendroglioblastoma. The patient received three cycles of procarbazine, lomustine, and vincristine chemotherapy for malignancy recurrence. In the fourth cycle, on the 12th day of procarbazine treatment, the patient developed anaphylaxis. Procarbazine was given together with premedication as part of the 12-step desensitization process, and the fourth cycle was successfully completed. MANAGEMENT AND OUTCOME: Procarbazine hypersensitivity reactions are observed less frequently than reactions to other chemotherapeutics. We presented a case of procarbazine-associated severe anaphylaxis that was able to continue procarbazine chemotherapy with successful desensitization. This case is important in terms of confirming the procarbazine desensitization protocol. DISCUSSION: In literature there is only one protocol developed was successfully applied in one patient with procarbazine anaphylaxis. In the current case, we took this protocol into consideration in the management of our patient. Following the use of this protocol, the patient was able to continue procarbazine chemotherapy successfully. Procarbazine anaphylaxis is rare, and more cases are needed to be reported to confirm the desensitization protocol and when to continue procarbazine treatment.

Comparison of the clinical outcomes of patients with NSAID-exacerbated respiratory disease receiving aspirin or biologicals.

OBJECTIVE: NSAID-exacerbated respiratory disease (NERD) is characterized by exacerbation of respiratory symptoms after NSAID intake. While research for specific treatment options continues in patients who cannot tolerate or are unresponsive to aspirin treatment after aspirin desensitization (ATAD), biologicals have emerged as a new therapeutic option in NERD patients. The aim of this study was to compare the quality of life, and the sinonasal and respiratory outcomes of NERD patients treated with ATAD or biologicals. METHODS: Patients who have been followed up at a tertiary care allergy center and who have been receiving at least one of ATAD, mepolizumab or omalizumab for at least six months were included. Evaluations were made using sinonasal outcome test (SNOT-22), asthma control test (ACT), short form-36 (SF-36), blood eosinophil counts, need for recurrent functional endoscopic sinus surgeries (FESS), and asthma or rhinitis exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids (OCS). RESULTS: A total of 59 patients comprised of 35 (59%) females and 24 (41%) males with a mean age of 46.1 (min-max, 20-70) years were included. The baseline blood eosinophil count was higher, and a significant decrease in blood eosinophil counts was observed in the mepolizumab group compared to ATAD group (p = 0.001, p < 0.001, respectively). At follow-up, the rate of recurrent FESS was lower in the group that received mepolizumab (p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: In NERD patients, mepolizumab significantly decreased blood eosinophil counts and recurrent FESS. There was no significant difference between the patients receiving ATAD or mepolizumab regarding other clinical parameters.

Efficiency and Reliability of Bronchoscopic Lung Volume Reduction Coil Application in Patients with Severe Emphysema.

Objectives: In the past years, surgery has been used for the non-medical treatment of severe emphysema. However, in recent years, bronchoscopic lung volume reduction (LVR) treatment has become more preferred because it is less invasive. Bronchoscopic coil treatment is the most frequently applied technique among these methods. The aim of the investigation was to determine the efficacy and safety of bronchoscopic volume reduction coil treatment for patients with severe emphysema. Methods: The patients who were performed bronchial volume reduction coil treatment between 2015 and 2017 and were followed in our outpatient clinic were retrospectively examined. They were followed for 1 year at quarterly intervals after the procedure. All the safety and efficacy of the patient's records, including the modified Medical Research Council (MRC) dyspnea score, the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) quality of life scale, the 6 min walk distance (6-MWT), pulmonary function tests, and adverse events, were evaluated. Results: Sixteen patients were included in the study. The mean of the preoperative mMRC clinic dyspnea score was 3.38, the mean of the 3rd month's mMRC score was 2.62 (p=0.007), and the mean of the 12th month's mMRC was 2.37 (p=0.003). The preoperative SGRQ quality of life parameter was 71.95±15.7, the 3rd month was 66.7±16.2 (p=0.007), and the 12th month was 62.9±16.4 (p=0.003). Preoperative mean of 6-MWT was 247.25±112.36 m, 3rd month 264.25±95 m (p=0.148), and 12th month 317±122.9 m (p=0.034). Patients' preoperative residual volume was 5.28±1.96 L, 3rd month 4.52±1.35 L (p=0.023), and 12th month 4.545±1.83 L (p=0.163). Patients' preoperative forced expiratory volume in one second, respectively, was 0.79±0.29 L, 3rd month 0.79±0.3 L (p=0.917), and 12th month 0.86±0.3 L (p=0.756). Conclusion: It seems that bronchoscopic LVR coil treatment, which is an effective and reliable procedure that reduces shortness of breath rather than respiratory function test parameters and improves the quality of daily life, will become even more widespread.