Monitoring recurrent angioedema: Findings from the Turkish angioedema control test validation study.

BACKGROUND: Determination of control level in recurrent angioedema (RAE) is necessary to guide management. Here, we validated a Turkish version of the angioedema control test (AECT) for 4-week (AECT-4wk) and for 3-month (AECT-3mth) and assessed their utility in monitoring RAE. METHOD: The recommended structured translation process for patient-reported outcome measures was completed. The final versions were administered to 51 patients with mast cell-mediated angioedema (MMAE) and 38 patients with hereditary angioedema, and the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was determined. Additionally, anchor surveys comprising angioedema activity score for 28 days (AAS-28 day), visual analog score for angioedema control, Likert scale for the control level from the patient's perspective (LS-AEC), angioedema quality of life, short form-12 (SF-12) and patients' assessment of treatment sufficiency were applied. RESULTS: The Turkish AECT versions showed good convergent validity with a substantial correlation with anchor tools and known-group validity. Excellent internal consistency and reproducibility were observed. Equal or more than 10 of 16 points scored with the AECT-4wk and AECT-3mth identified patients with well-controlled disease. The disease activity, control and burden parameters were consistent with the disease control level defined depending on the cut-off point 10 of AECT. Three-point changes in AECT-4wk and -3 mt could detect MCID in disease control in all patients. CONCLUSIONS: Turkish AECT versions are valid and reliable tools for assessing and monitoring disease control in patients with RAE. The use of the Turkish versions of the AECT in routine patient care, clinical trials and angioedema research is recommended.

How Does Pregnancy and Type of Delivery Affect the Clinical Course of Hereditary Angioedema?

INTRODUCTION: Knowledge on the clinical course of hereditary angioedema (HAE) during pregnancy, delivery, and breastfeeding is very limited. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the course of HAE during these periods. METHODS: The HAE attacks C1-INH prophylaxis before and during pregnancy and during breastfeeding, and the delivery types were retrospectively determined. The severity of attacks was assessed by a 10-point Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). RESULTS: We evaluated 88 pregnancies in 48 HAE patients among whom 20 were primiparous. Among those who had a HAE diagnosis during pregnancy (n = 34), the median attack numbers before pregnancy, during pregnancy, breastfeeding, and after breastfeeding were 17, 39, 24, and 14 (before pregnancy vs. pregnancy, p < 0.001; during pregnancy vs. breastfeeding, p = 0.001). The mean VASs (SD) were 6.59 (1.82), 8.33 (1.58), 7.32 (1.66), and 6.95 (1.90) (before pregnancy vs. pregnancy, p < 0.001; during pregnancy vs. breastfeeding, p = 0.016), respectively. Among those who received a HAE diagnosis after pregnancy (n = 54), the number (59.3%) and the severity (60%) of HAE attacks were high in pregnancy. 47 of the deliveries were normal vaginal delivery (NVD). Regional anesthesia was applied in 8 NVDs. 20 of caesarean deliveries were performed under general anesthesia, and 21 were under spinal anesthesia. Lowest numbers of attacks were found in patients who did not receive anesthesia during NVD (p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: The course of HAE can be worse during pregnancy and breastfeeding. NVD is related to fewer HAE attacks and prophylaxis with C1-INH during NVD is not necessary to prevent a HAE attack.

Adherence to subcutaneous immunotherapy with aeroallergens in real-life practice during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The success of subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) mostly depends on regular injections. Our aim was to investigate adherence to SCIT with aeroallergens during the COVID-19 pandemic and demonstrate clinical consequences of treatment disruptions in real life. METHODS: Visual analogue scale for quality of life (VAS-QoL), VAS for symptom scores (VAS-symptom), medication scores (MSs), and total symptom scores (TSS-6) were recorded during the pandemic in 327 adult allergic rhinitis and/or asthmatic patients receiving maintenance SCIT, and these scores were compared with the pre-pandemic data. Patients were grouped according to SCIT administration intervals; no delay (Group 1), <2 months (Group 2), and ≥2-month intervals (Group 3). RESULTS: A total of 104 (31.8%) patients (Group 3) were considered as nonadherent which was mostly related to receiving SCIT with HDMs and using public transportation for reaching the hospital. Median MS, VAS-symptom, and TSS-6 scores of Group 3 patients during the pandemic were higher than the pre-pandemic scores (p = 0.005, p < 0.001, p < 0.001, respectively), whereas median VAS-QoL scores of Group 3 during the pandemic were lower than the pre-pandemic scores (p < 0.001). Median TSS-6 and VAS-symptom scores were the highest in Group 3 compared with other groups (p < 0.001 for each comparison). Median VAS-QoL scores were the lowest in Group 3 compared with Group 1 and Group 2 (p < 0.001, p = 0.043, respectively). CONCLUSION: When precautions in allergy clinics are carefully applied, adherence to SCIT can be high during a pandemic. Patients must be encouraged to regularly adhere to SCIT injections since delays in SCIT administration can deteriorate clinical symptoms.

Impact of anxiety, stress and depression related to COVID-19 pandemic on the course of hereditary angioedema with C1-inhibitor deficiency.

BACKGROUND: Hereditary angioedema (HAE) attacks can be provoked with psychological factors. The aim of this study was to assess the effects of anxiety, depression and stress related to COVID-19 pandemic on disease activity of HAE patients during the quarantine period (QP) and the return to normal period (RTNP). METHODS: This study was conducted between March 2020 and September 2020 in four allergy centres. Demographic, clinical features and mental health status were evaluated in QP (from March to the beginning of June) and RTNP (from June to the beginning of September) applied by the government. The 10-point visual analogue scale (VAS10) was used to define the severity of HAE attacks. Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scales-21 (DASS-21) and Fear of COVID-19 (FC-19) scale were performed to assess mental health status. RESULTS: 139 HAE patients were included in the study. In QP, median attack numbers and median VAS10 scores were 5 (min-max: 0-45) and 6 (min-max: 0-10), respectively. HAE attack numbers, DASS-21 stress, anxiety, depression and total DASS-21 scores, and FC-19 scores were higher in QP than RTNP (p = 0.001, p < 0.001, p = 0.001, p < 0.001, p < 0.001, p < 0.001, respectively). However, there was no difference in attack severity scores between the two periods (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed that the restriction measures during COVID-19 outbreak cause an increase in the number of HAE attacks in relation to anxiety, depression, stress and fear of COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, it is important to provide psychological support to HAE patients during the pandemic.