Effects of house dust mite subcutaneous immunotherapy in real-life. Immunological and clinical biomarkers and economic impact analysis.

Background: Etiology of allergic rhinitis and asthma is frequently associated with house dust mite sensitization and allergen immunotherapy (AIT) represents the only disease modifying treatment. In a real world setting, clinicians would benefit from biomarkers to monitor or predict response to AIT. Methods: Twenty-four consecutive house dust mite (HDM) mono-sensitized rhinitic patients, treated with subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) as per clinical practice, were enrolled. Multiple in vitro biomarkers such as basophil activation (BAT), IL-10 levels, and molecular allergen-specific IgE were performed during HDM SCIT, to monitor the effects of AIT and then correlated to in vivo scores (VAS, CMSS, RQLQ). Nasal cytology was performed at baseline and after 6 and 12 months of treatment. Finally, the economic impact of SCIT in this cohort of patients was evaluated. Results: Clinical biomarkers confirmed to be useful to monitor AIT efficacy. As for laboratory biomarkers, BAT showed a reduction trend, particularly for D2C1, suggesting that this is a useful parameter in monitoring patients. IL-10 levels tend to remain stable or slightly decrease during treatment. The economic analysis confirmed the favorable impact of immunotherapy. Conclusions: In this cohort of patients, SCIT confirmed its effectiveness in reducing symptoms and drug utilization. Clinical scores confirmed to be valid in monitoring patients and their response. BAT demonstrated to be useful in monitoring more than predicting response. Further studies are needed to better explore the usefulness of these biomarkers in AIT.

Celecoxib tolerability in patients with hypersensitivity (mainly cutaneous reactions) to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.

BACKGROUND: Adverse reactions to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are commonly observed in clinical practice, particularly among patients with chronic urticaria or asthma. The identification of a safe and reliable alternative is a frequent problem for both general practitioners and allergists. METHODS: We assessed 120 patients (83 women and 37 men) who had experienced adverse reactions to one or more NSAIDs; 64 (53.3%) of them had reacted to only one NSAID (single reactors) and 56 (46.7%) to multiple NSAIDs (multiple reactors). Among our subjects, 76.7% reported cutaneous reactions, 8.3% respiratory symptoms, 10.8% both cutaneous and respiratory symptoms, and 4.2% anaphylaxis. All patients were subjected to a single-blind, placebo-controlled oral challenge with two different doses of celecoxib (50 + 150 mg 1 h later = cumulative dose of 200 mg). RESULTS: None of the patients reacted to the placebo and only one (0.8%) suffered a reaction (urticaria) after the second dose of celecoxib. CONCLUSIONS: Celecoxib showed a 98.9% rate of tolerability in the 92 patients with exclusively cutaneous reactions and was well tolerated by all 28 subjects with NSAID-related respiratory or anaphylactic symptoms.

Tolerability of rofecoxib in patients with adverse reactions to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: a study of 216 patients and literature review.

BACKGROUND: Adverse reactions to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are frequent, particularly among patients with chronic urticaria or asthma. The identification of an alternative safe and reliable drug is a common problem in clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: To assess the tolerability of rofecoxib, a new NSAID that selectively inhibits the inducible isoform of cyclooxygenase, in a large group of NSAID-sensitive patients. METHODS: We studied 216 patients (164 females and 52 males) who had suffered adverse reactions to one or more NSAIDs; 98 subjects (45.4%) had experienced reactions to only one NSAID (single hypersensitivity) and 118 subjects (54.6%) had reacted to multiple NSAIDs (multiple hypersensitivity). Cutaneous reactions were reported by 79.6% of the subjects, respiratory symptoms by 10.7%, cutaneous and respiratory symptoms by 8.3%, anaphylaxis by 1.4%. All the subjects underwent a single-blind, placebo-controlled oral challenge with divided therapeutic doses of rofecoxib (6.25 mg +18.75 mg 1 h later = cumulative dose of 25 mg). RESULTS: No reactions to the placebo were observed; only 1 subject (0.46%) experienced an urticarial reaction, after the second dose of rofecoxib. CONCLUSIONS: Considering previous studies and our own data, rofecoxib was well tolerated by all of the 174 patients with exclusively NSAID-related respiratory symptoms. Rofecoxib also had a very low rate (1.6%) of cross-reactivity in the 600 patients with exclusively cutaneous reactions to NSAIDs.