EpiDex® Swiss field trial 2004-2008.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 20% of leg ulcers remain unresponsive to the best conservative standard of care. So far, these patients could either receive conventional skin grafts or had to accept their intractable wound. Skin substitutes from cell culture may represent a promising alternative to heal a major part of these patients on a non-surgical, potentially more cost-effective basis. OBJECTIVE: To systematically evaluate the first 68 patients treated in Switzerland (Swiss EpiDex® field trial 2004-2008). METHODS: Retrospective study on EpiDex treatment of a complete consecutive series of 68 patients with chronic wounds (66 chronic leg ulcers, 2 sores) unresponsive to best conservative standard of care. The primary end point was complete wound closure within 9 months after transplantation, the secondary end points change of wound surface area, pain reduction and overall judgement by the patient. Adverse effects were infection, dermatitis and others. Calculation of treatment costs was made. RESULTS: By the end of the study, 50/68 (74%) of patients had their wound completely healed [venous 29/37 (78%); mixed 7/9 (78%); others 14/22 (64%)]; 10/68 (15%) had the wound surface area reduced by >50%, and 8/68 (12%) did not respond to the EpiDex treatment. Wound pain disappeared completely in 78% and partially in 13%. Fifteen patients (22%) received antibiotics for wound infection, and 2 (3%) developed dermatitis (not related to the local therapy). Average treatment costs for venous ulcers amounted to EUR 5,357, compared to EUR 5,722-8,622 reimbursed according to the German DRG system (2010) for an in-patient skin graft. CONCLUSION: EpiDex may effectively heal up to three quarters of recalcitrant chronic leg ulcers. Thus, it represents an intermediate step to avoid costly in-patient split-skin mesh graft treatments. Patients remain mobilized, and a donor site is avoided. Large wound size or a necrotic wound bed limit the use of EpiDex. Otherwise, it offers the opportunity to avoid conventional skin grafts in a significant number of chronic leg ulcer patients.

Clinical and immunologic effects of H1 antihistamine preventive medication during honeybee venom immunotherapy.

BACKGROUND: H1 antihistamines increase safety during allergen-specific immunotherapy and might influence the outcome because of immunoregulatory effects. OBJECTIVE: We sought to analyze the influence of 5 mg of levocetirizine (LC) on the safety, efficacy, and immunologic effects of ultrarush honeybee venom immunotherapy (BVIT). METHOD: In a double-blind, placebo-controlled study 54 patients with honeybee venom allergy received LC or placebo from 2 days before BVIT to day 21. Side effects during dose increase and systemic allergic reactions (SARs) to a sting challenge after 120 days were analyzed. Allergen-specific immune response was investigated in skin, serum, and allergen-stimulated T-cell cultures. RESULTS: Side effects were significantly more frequent in patients receiving placebo. Four patients receiving placebo dropped out because of side effects. SARs to the sting challenge occurred in 8 patients (6 in the LC group and 2 in the placebo group). Seven SARs were only cutaneous, and 1 in the placebo group was also respiratory. Difference of SARs caused by the sting challenge was insignificant. Specific IgG levels increased significantly in both groups. Major allergen phospholipase A(2)-stimulated T cells from both groups showed a slightly decreased proliferation. The decrease in IFN-gamma and IL-13 levels with placebo was not prominent with LC, whereas IL-10 levels showed a significant increase in the LC group only. Decreased histamine receptor (HR)1/HR2 ratio in allergen-specific T cells on day 21 in the placebo group was prevented by LC. CONCLUSIONS: LC reduces side effects during dose increase without influencing the efficacy of BVIT. LC modulates the natural course of allergen-specific immune response and affects the expression of HRs and cytokine production by allergen-specific T cells.