Trait profiles in difficult-to-treat asthma: Clinical impact and response to systematic assessment.

BACKGROUND: Multidisciplinary systematic assessment improves outcomes in difficult-to-treat asthma, but without clear response predictors. Using a treatable-traits framework, we stratified patients by trait profile, examining clinical impact and treatment responsiveness to systematic assessment. METHODS: We performed latent class analysis using 12 traits on difficult-to-treat asthma patients undergoing systematic assessment at our institution. We examined Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ-6) and Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) scores, FEV1 , exacerbation frequency, and maintenance oral corticosteroid (mOCS) dose, at baseline and following systematic assessment. RESULTS: Among 241 patients, two airway-centric profiles were characterized by early-onset with allergic rhinitis (n = 46) and adult onset with eosinophilia/chronic rhinosinusitis (n = 60), respectively, with minimal comorbid or psychosocial traits; three non-airway-centric profiles exhibited either comorbid (obesity, vocal cord dysfunction, dysfunctional breathing) dominance (n = 51), psychosocial (anxiety, depression, smoking, unemployment) dominance (n = 72), or multi-domain impairment (n = 12). Compared to airway-centric profiles, non-airway-centric profiles had worse baseline ACQ-6 (2.7 vs. 2.2, p < .001) and AQLQ (3.8 vs. 4.5, p < .001) scores. Following systematic assessment, the cohort showed overall improvements across all outcomes. However, airway-centric profiles had more FEV1 improvement (5.6% vs. 2.2% predicted, p < .05) while non-airway-centric profiles trended to greater exacerbation reduction (1.7 vs. 1.0, p = .07); mOCS dose reduction was similar (3.1 mg vs. 3.5 mg, p = .782). CONCLUSION: Distinct trait profiles in difficult-to-treat asthma are associated with different clinical outcomes and treatment responsiveness to systematic assessment. These findings yield clinical and mechanistic insights into difficult-to-treat asthma, offer a conceptual framework to address disease heterogeneity, and highlight areas responsive to targeted intervention.

Diagnostic value of a medical algorithm for investigation of perioperative hypersensitivity reactions.

BACKGROUND: Evaluation of perioperative hypersensitivity (POH) is challenging, and accurate screening tools are needed to optimize the diagnostic process. We aimed to assess and validate the diagnostic value of a published algorithm (using tryptase and clinical presentation) to identify appropriate individuals for further testing for IgE-mediated POH. METHODS: We analysed the clinical presentation (tryptase elevation, cardiovascular, respiratory, skin involvement) of patients proceeding to testing for possible IgE-mediated POH at a single tertiary referral centre, relative to subsequent skin testing and specific IgE results. Clinical presentations by drug class were also determined. RESULTS: In 293 consecutive patients, the use of a published algorithm based on one or more of; (i) defined increase in serum tryptase, (ii) involvement of at least two-organ systems, or (iii) presentation with new urticaria and/or angioedema; was highly sensitive [98.8% (CI95: 95.7-99.9%)] but less specific [34.6% (CI95: 25.7-44.4%)] in identifying patients testing positive on skin testing and/or specific IgE. Presentation with cardiovascular symptoms was also sensitive [89.8%(CI95: 84.2-94.0%)], while the combination of respiratory symptoms and increased tryptase was most specific [85.9%(CI95:76.6-92.5%)]. Respiratory involvement was more common in neuromuscular blocking agent allergy, while urticaria/angioedema was more common in antibiotic allergy. CONCLUSION: The published algorithm (of tryptase rise, two-organ involvement or new urticaria/angioedema) is highly sensitive, and appropriate as a screening tool to identify patients suitable for testing for IgE-mediated POH.

Improving drug allergy label accuracy by supervised safety- and protocol-driven evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: Drug allergies are often self-reported but of unknown accuracy. We carried out a prospective study to examine the utility and safety of formal allergology evaluation, and to identify factors associated with accurate drug allergy labels. METHOD: All patients who underwent drug allergy evaluation in our clinic during the study period were recruited. Baseline demographics, characteristics of index hypersensitivity reaction and outcomes of evaluation were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 331 patients from March 2019 to June 2021 completed drug allergy evaluation to index drugs of concern. There were 123 (37%) male patients, and the mean age was 49 years (standard deviation 17). There were 170 beta-lactam antibiotics, 53 peri-operative drugs, 43 others, 38 non steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and 27 non-beta-lactam antibiotic evaluations. Index reaction occurred within 5 years in 165 (50%) patients, with latency of less than 4 hours in 125 (38%) patients. The most common index reactions were rash, angioedema and urticaria. There were 57 (17%) evaluations stratified as low risk, 222 (67%) moderate risk, and 52 (16%) high risk based on multidisciplinary consensus. Allergy label was found to be false (negative drug evaluation) in 248 (75%) patients, while 16/237 (7%) skin tests, 44/331 (13%) in-clinic graded challenge, and 23/134 (17%) home prolonged challenges were positive (true drug allergy). The most common evaluation reactions were rash and urticaria. No cases of anaphylaxis were elicited. CONCLUSION: Seventy-five percent of drug allergy labels are inaccurate. Risk-stratified, protocolised allergy evaluation is safe. Prolonged drug challenge increases the sensitivity of drug allergy evaluation and should therefore be performed when indicated.

Diagnostic and Therapeutic Outcomes Following Systematic Assessment of Patients with Concurrent Suspected Vocal Cord Dysfunction and Asthma.

BACKGROUND: Vocal cord dysfunction (VCD) is present in 25% to 50% of patients with asthma. When both diagnoses are suspected, accurate diagnosis and targeted management represent a clinical challenge. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate diagnostic and therapeutic outcomes following systematic assessment for patients with concurrent suspected VCD and asthma. METHODS: Patients underwent systematic evaluation by clinical assessment and validated questionnaires, followed by multidisciplinary management. VCD was confirmed by visualization of paradoxical vocal fold motion at baseline or following provocation. Asthma was confirmed by demonstrating variable airflow obstruction. Asthma medications were deescalated in those with low clinical probability of asthma and no variable airflow obstruction. Response to 2 or more sessions of speech pathology was assessed by subjective report and standardized questionnaires. RESULTS: Among 212 consecutive patients, 62 (29%) patients had both VCD and asthma, 54 (26%) had VCD alone, 51 (24%) had asthma alone, and 45 (21%) had neither. Clinician assessment and the Laryngeal Hypersensitivity Questionnaire both predicted laryngoscopy-confirmed VCD. Deescalation or discontinuation of asthma therapy was possible in 37 of 59 (63%) patients without variable airflow obstruction, and was most successful (odds ratio, 5.5) in the presence of laryngoscopy-confirmed VCD (25 of 31, or 81%) Patients with VCD responded subjectively to 2 or more sessions of speech pathology, but laryngeal questionnaire scores did not improve. CONCLUSIONS: Expert clinician assessment and the Laryngeal Hypersensitivity Questionnaire predict the presence of laryngoscopy-confirmed VCD. Systematic assessment for both VCD and asthma facilitates deescalation or discontinuation of unnecessary asthma medications. Subjective symptom improvement following speech pathology was not paralleled by laryngeal questionnaire scores in this cohort.