[Biologics for the treatment of severe asthma: Current status report 2023]. / Agir astim tedavisinde biyolojikler: Güncel durum raporu 2023.

Severe asthma is associated with increased use of healthcare services, significant deterioration in the quality of life, and high disease and economic burden on patients and societies. Additional treatments are required for severe forms of asthma. Biological agents are recommended for the treatment of severe asthma. In this current status report, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety data of approved biologics; omalizumab, mepolizumab, reslizumab, benralizumab, dupilumab, and tezepelumab, in the treatment of severe asthma and appropriate patient profiles for these biologics. Pubmed and Cochrane databases based on randomized controlled trials, posthoc analyses, meta-analyses, and real-life studies examining the efficacy and effectiveness of biologics in severe asthma were searched, and the results of these studies on important asthma outcomes were reviewed. Existing studies have shown that all the approved biologic agents targeting cells, receptors, and mediators involved in type 2 inflammation in the bronchial wall in severe asthma significantly reduce asthma exacerbations, reduce the need for oral corticosteroids, and improve asthma control, quality of life, and pulmonary functions. Characterizing the asthma endotype and phenotype in patients with severe asthma and determining which treatment would be more appropriate for a particular patient is an essential step in personalized treatment.

Urticarial Vasculitis Differs From Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria in Time to Diagnosis, Clinical Presentation, and Need for Anti-Inflammatory Treatment: An International Prospective UCARE Study.

BACKGROUND: Chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) and urticarial vasculitis (UV) share several clinical features including the occurrence of wheals. As of yet, the criteria for differentiating the 2 disorders are not clearly defined. OBJECTIVE: Here, we aimed to identify differences, similarities, and the likelihood for specific clinical features in patients with UV versus those with CSU. METHODS: Across 10 Urticaria Centers of Reference and Excellence, 106 patients with skin biopsy-confirmed UV and 126 patients with CSU were prospectively recruited to complete a questionnaire on the clinical features, course, and response to treatment of their disease. RESULTS: As compared with CSU, patients with UV more often experienced postinflammatory skin hyperpigmentation, wheals of ≥24-hour duration, eye inflammation, and fever (6.9, 4.0, 3.6, and 2.4 times, respectively). Clinical features that increased the risk for UV diagnosis when present at the onset of disease included wheals of ≥24-hour duration (7.3-fold), pain of the skin (7.0-fold), postinflammatory hyperpigmentation (4.1-fold), and fatigue (3.1-fold). The diagnostic delay was markedly longer for normocomplementemic UV as compared with hypocomplementemic UV and CSU (21 vs 5 vs 6 months, respectively). Oral corticosteroids and omalizumab were the most effective treatments in patients with UV and CSU, respectively. Patients with UV showed a higher need for immunosuppressive and anti-inflammatory therapies than patients with CSU. CONCLUSIONS: Long wheal duration, skin pain and hyperpigmentation, and systemic symptoms point to UV rather than CSU as the underlying disease and should prompt further diagnostic workup including a skin biopsy.

Calculated Globulin Is Clinically Useful as a Screening Test for Antibody Deficiency in Turkish Adult Patients.

INTRODUCTION: Heterogeneous clinical features of antibody deficiency (AD) may cause diagnostic delays. Calculated globulin (CG) (total protein minus albumin) has been proposed as a screening test to prevent morbidity due to diagnostic delays in AD. Our aim was to validate CG as a screening test for AD in Turkish adult patients by comparing its role with gamma globulin analysis in protein electrophoresis. METHODS: Fifty serum samples were randomly collected for each level of CG from 15 to 25 g/L and tested for serum IgG, IgA, IgM levels and protein electrophoresis. Cut-off values predicting low IgG levels were calculated for electrophoretically determined gamma globulin and CG. Additionally, the data of 47 patients followed up in our clinic with a diagnosis of primary antibody deficiency (PAD) were retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 550 adult patients were included in the study. The CG value predicting patients with IgG <6 g/L as a screening test was determined as <20 g/L with 83.8% sensitivity and 74.9% specificity. The gamma globulin value which predicted patients with the same IgG value of 89.0% sensitivity and 89.4% specificity was determined as <7 g/L. In the retrospective analysis, 37 of 47 patients (78.7%) with PAD had a CG value of <20 g/L at the time of the diagnosis and all 13 patients (100%) whose gamma globulin values were measured at the time of the diagnosis had a gamma globulin value of <7 g/L. CONCLUSION: The determined CG cut-off value of <20 g/L can be used as a screening test in Turkish adult patients.

The first successful desensitization protocol in exenatide allergy: a case report.

BACKGROUND: Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists are important treatment options in obese patients with type 2 diabetes. To date, few immediate allergic reactions due to GLP-1 receptor agonists were reported. One report revealed that a patient with a level 1 anaphylaxis according to Brighton Criteria due to an exendin based GLP-1 receptor agonist was able to tolerate liraglutide (Human GLP-1 analogue), the alternative GLP-1 receptor agonist. Since exenatide is the only available GLP-1 receptor agonist covered by insurance in Turkey, a drug desensitization protocol, the only therapeutic method in hypersensitivity reactions used in case of absence of an alternative drug, was considered. Here, we report a successful desensitization protocol for the first time in two obese diabetic patients with an immediate hypersensitivity to exenatide. CASE PRESENTATION: The first patient was a 47 year-old female. She was referred to our outpatient allergy clinic because of a generalized urticaria developed within minutes after the last dose, following a week of an exenatide BID 5 mcg/20 mcl treatment. Although the reaction was sudden onset, it did not meet the Brighton Criteria of anaphylaxis. The second patient was a 46 year-old female. She had a large local immediate injection site reaction that appeared 15 min following an exenatide BID 5 mcg/20 mcl injection. The injection site reaction was not accompanied by a systemic allergic reaction. We performed desensitization with exenatide to two patients who need GLP-1 receptor agonist treatment. Protocol was completed in 7 steps in approximately 3 h, with the aim of reaching the daily dosage of exenatide. Throughout this process, we observed that both cases tolerated the protocol without any complaints or complications. Following the protocol, the patients safely tolerated the treatment for 3 months. CONCLUSIONS: We present the first successful desensitization protocol to exenatide in both local and/or systemic immediate hypersensitivity reactions and indicate the importance of desensitization in patients who do not have alternative therapies.