Omalizumab in patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria nonresponsive to H1-antihistamine treatment: results of the phase IV open-label SUNRISE study.

BACKGROUND: Omalizumab is approved as an add-on therapy for the treatment of chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) in patients with inadequate response to H1-antihistamine treatment. The urticaria control test (UCT) is a reliable, concise tool developed as an alternative to the 7-day urticaria activity score (UAS7) - the standard for CSU disease activity assessment. OBJECTIVES: This prospective, open-label, phase IV study evaluated the efficacy and safety of omalizumab in French adult patients with CSU nonresponsive to H1-antihistamine treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients [n = 136; stratified 1 : 2 (with angio-oedema : without angioedema)] received omalizumab 300 mg subcutaneously every 4 weeks for 12 weeks. Study assessments included UCT, UAS7, angio-oedema activity score and d-dimer levels (exploratory objective). RESULTS: At Week 12, 74·6% of the patients achieved disease control [UCT score ≥ 12 (primary endpoint)] and 67·7% of patients showed well-controlled disease (UAS7 ≤ 6). There was a strong negative correlation between UCT score and UAS7 at Week 12 (Spearman's correlation coefficient -0·839). Mean plasma d-dimer concentration was elevated at baseline (1002·1 ng mL-1 ) and decreased notably at Week 8 (455 ng mL-1 ). Among the nine patients with a very high baseline d-dimer concentration (> 3000 ng mL-1 ), eight were responders (UAS7 ≤ 6) at Week 12. CONCLUSIONS: Omalizumab was efficacious in patients with CSU nonresponsive to H1-antihistamines. The UCT was a reliable tool for disease assessment and the scores correlated well with UAS7. This study does not support the usefulness of d-dimer to monitor long-term disease prognosis in adult urticaria; however, it may indicate patients who respond to omalizumab.

[Proxy lymphomatoid contact dermatitis]. / Dermite de contact lymphomatoïde par procuration.

BACKGROUND: Lymphomatoid contact dermatitis is a delayed hypersensitivity reaction predominantly featuring T-cell infiltration. We report a case mainly involving B-cell infiltration associated with eczema and resulting from an indirect proxy contact with an allergen in a conjugal setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A 32-year-old man had an infiltrated cutaneous lesion on the interior aspect of the left arm with eczematous lesions of the waist and the anterior aspect of the left arm which were present for 6 months. All of these lesions were unresponsive to strong local steroids. Biopsy of the infiltrated lesion showed a dense lymphoid dermal infiltration chiefly comprising B cells. Histological examination of a waist lesion revealed chronic eczema. Patch testing was performed with the ECDRG test battery. A PPD (paraphenylenediamine) patch test was the only examination yielding a positive result. Detailed questioning revealed use of a hair dye by the patient's spouse and withdrawal of the allergen resulted in complete remission of the two types of lesion. DISCUSSION: This case highlights the ability of a single allergen to induce different lymphoid phenotypes. It also underscores the value of detailed questioning in allergology.

[Atopic keratoconjunctivitis: One allergy may mask another. A clinical observation with two types of hypersensitivity reactions: IgE-mediated and non-IgE-mediated]. / Kératoconjonctivite atopique : une allergie peut en cacher une autre. À propos d'une observation clinique avec hypersensibilité IgE médiée et hypersensibilité non IgE médiée.

Allergies are frequently implicated in ophthalmologic practice. These typically benign allergies can be potentially severe for the ocular surface and have an impact in everyday life. We relate, through a case of keratoconjunctivitis involving 2 types of hypersensitivity, the various triggers and therapeutic choices to allow a more effective treatment.

Acquired angioedema with C1 inhibitor deficiency: is the distinction between type I and type II still relevant?

BACKGROUND: Acquired angioedemas are divided into type I associated with lymphoproliferation and type II caused by anti-C1-inhibitor antibodies. Recent reports have suggested that this distinction is not so clear-cut, mainly because of the presence of antibodies against the C1 inhibitor in some cases belonging to the type I group. We report herein 2 additional cases of acquired angioedema with anti-C1-inhibitor antibody. MATERIAL AND METHODS: One man and 1 woman had had acquired angioedema for several years. In the man, a monoclonal component had been detected several years before the present study. In the second patient, a monoclonal component was detected during the study. The following data were studied on successive blood samples collected during angioedema manifestations: complement component levels, functional activity of the classical pathway, functional and antigenic C1 inhibitor doses, ELISA test to detect autoantibodies to C1 inhibitor and Western blot analysis of the C1 inhibitor. RESULTS: In both patients, CH50 and C4 activities were decreased, and an autoantibody to C1 inhibitor was detected. In 1 case, the antibody appeared after the monoclonal component; in the second case, it appeared before and belonged to a different immunoglobulin class. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that the distinction between type I and type II acquired angioedema is no longer valid because of overlapping in some cases.