One-Bag 8-Step Ferric Carboxymaltose Desensitization Protocol for Patients with a History of Hypersensitivity Reactions to Iron Preparations.

INTRODUCTION: Iron deficiency is the most common cause of anemia in both sexes, although it is more common in women. Intravenous (IV) iron replacement is preferred in patients who cannot tolerate oral treatment or when iron stores need to be replenished rapidly. In this study, we wanted to share the ferric carboxymaltose (FCM) desensitization protocol that we self-created and successfully applied. METHODS: This retrospective cross-sectional study included patients with a history of hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) to IV or oral iron replacement and patients who were planned to receive IV iron replacement but were referred to the allergy clinic because of have risk factors (atopic diseases, history of HSR to other drugs, high serum tryptase levels, etc.) for HSRs. Before desensitization, some of the patients underwent skin tests (skin prick test and intradermal test) with FCM, and the results were recorded. Skin tests were not performed in patients with a history of drug use (antihistamine, systemic steroid, omalizumab, etc.) that affected the results of skin tests. All patients underwent a one-bag 8-step desensitization protocol with 500 mg FCM and were observed for 2 h after desensitization. RESULTS: A total of 15 patients (14 females and 1 male) with a mean age of 41.13 ± 11.18 years were included in the study. When the patients were evaluated in terms of the risk of allergic reactions according to their clinical history, 8 patients had a history of anaphylaxis with iron preparations (FCM, n = 4; ferric hydroxide sucrose, n = 2; iron [II] glycine sulfate, n = 1; and iron [III] hydroxide polymaltose, n = 1), and 7 patients had a history of HSR other than anaphylaxis with iron preparations (urticaria, n = 6 [FCM, n = 2; iron (II) glycine sulfate, n = 2; and iron (III) hydroxide polymaltose, n = 2] and urticaria + angioedema [ferric hydroxide sucrose, n = 1]). Desensitization was successfully completed in all patients. No HSR was observed during or after the procedure in any of the patients. CONCLUSION: IV iron replacement is a very effective method, especially in cases where iron stores need to be replenished more rapidly. In patients with a history of iron HSR or at risk of developing HSR, replacement can be safely performed without an allergic reaction with successful desensitization protocols.

[Vaccination approach in patients with an allergic reaction to COVID-19 vaccines or at risk of developing allergic reactions]. / COVID-19 asilarina alerjik reaksiyon gösteren veya alerjik reaksiyon gelisme riski olan hastalarda asilama yaklasimi.

Introduction: There is consensus that patients at risk of developing an allergic reaction to COVID-19 vaccines should be evaluated by an immunologist-allergist to determine whether vaccination should be recommended. We wanted to share our experiences in the management of these high-risk patients, from diagnostic tests in allergological evaluation to the vaccination process. Materials and Methods: Our retrospective cross-sectional study included patients who had previously developed an allergic reaction to COVID-19 vaccines or drugs and therefore were referred to our allergy and immunology clinic. Prick and intradermal tests were performed on all patients with methylprednisolone acetate (Depo-Medrol®, Pfizer) 40 mg/mL containing polyethylene Glycol (PEG) and triamcinolone acetonide (Kenacort®, Deva) 40 mg/mL containing polysorbate 80. While vaccination with desensitization was recommended for all patients with positive skin tests, split-dose vaccination was recommended for patients with negative skin tests. After explaining the risks and benefits, the choice of the vaccine (Pfizer/BioNTech or Sinovac/ CoronoVac) was left to the patients' discretion. Result: A total of 41 patients, 10 males, and 31 females, with a mean age of 42.37 ± 14.177 years were included. Eighteen patients with a history of allergy after COVID-19 vaccines were analyzed according to the type of reaction and type of vaccine administered (Pfizer/BioNTech/Coronovac; Anaphylaxis: 4/1, Urticaria: 11/2). Moreover, there was a history of drug allergy in 23 patients who had not been vaccinated before. Skin tests with PEG were positive in a total of seven patients while skin tests with polysorbate 80 were negative in all patients. No allergic reaction developed in seven patients who underwent desensitization and in 34 patients who received a split dose. Conclusions: Considering the potentially life-saving benefits of vaccination in a global pandemic environment, it is a safe and effective method to administer vaccines to at-risk patients using desensitization or split dosing techniques, based on their sensitivity status determined through a PEG skin test. This approach allows for the avoidance of preventing access to vaccines, while still ensuring the safety of patients.

Comparison of omalizumab and mepolizumab treatment efficacy in patients with atopic and eosinophilic "Overlap" severe asthma: Biological agent preference in atopic-eosinophilic severe asthma.

Approximately 1-third of patients with severe asthma are candidates for both omalizumab and mepolizumab treatment. We aimed to compare the clinical, spirometric and inflammatory efficacy of these 2 biologics in atopic and eosinophilic "overlap" severe asthma patients. In our 3-center retrospective cross-sectional observational study, the data of patients who received omalizumab or mepolizumab for at least 16 weeks to treat severe asthma were examined. Atopic (perennial allergen sensitivity and total IgE level 30-1500 IU/mL) and eosinophilic (blood eosinophil counts ≥150 cells/µL in admission; or ≥300 cells/µL in the previous year) patients with asthma suitable for both biologics were included in the study. Post-treatment changes in the asthma control test (ACT) score, number of attacks, forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), and eosinophil count were compared. The rates of any biological responder patient were compared according to whether they had high eosinophil counts (≥500 cells/µL vs <500 cells/µL). Total of 181 patients data were evaluated, of the 74 atopic and eosinophilic overlap patients included in the study, 56 were receiving omalizumab and 18 were receiving mepolizumab. When omalizumab and mepolizumab treatment efficacies were compared, there was no difference in terms of the reduction in attacks and improvement in ACT. The decrease in eosinophil levels in patients in the mepolizumab arm was significantly higher than that in patients in the omalizumab arm (46.3% vs 87.8%; P < .001). The improvement in FEV1 was greater with mepolizumab treatment, although the difference was not significant (215 mL vs 380 mL; P = .053). It has been shown that having high eosinophil counts does not affect the clinical and spirometric responder patient rates for either biological condition. The success of omalizumab and mepolizumab treatment is similar in patients with atopic and eosinophilic overlap with severe asthma. However, because the baseline patient inclusion criteria are not compatible, head-to-head studies comparing both biological agents are required.

Clinical and immunological outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with inborn errors of immunity receiving different brands and doses of COVID-19 vaccines.

Introduction: Vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) provide successful control of the coronavirus-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The safety and immunogenicity studies are encouraging in patients with inborn errors of immunity (IEI); however, data about mortality outcomes and severe disease after vaccination still need to be fully addressed. Therefore, we aimed to determine the clinical and immunological outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with IEI who have received vaccination. Materials and Methods: Eighty-eight patients with a broad range of molecular etiologies were studied; 45 experienced SARS-CoV-2 infection. Infection outcomes were analyzed in terms of genetic etiology, background clinical characteristics, and immunization history, including the type and number of doses received and the time elapsed since vaccination. In addition, anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were quantified using electrochemiluminescent immunoassay. Results: Patients were immunized using one of the three regimens: inactivated (Sinovac, Coronavac®), mRNA (BNT162b2, Comirnaty®, Pfizer-Biontech), and a combination. All three regimens induced comparable anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG levels, with no differences in the adverse events. Among 45 patients with COVID-19, 26 received a full course of vaccination, while 19 were vaccine-naive or received incomplete dosing. No patients died due to COVID-19 infection. The fully immunized group had a lower hospitalization rate (23% vs. 31.5%) and a shorter symptomatic phase than the others. Among the fully vaccinated patients, serum IgM and E levels were significantly lower in hospitalized patients than non-hospitalized patients. Conclusion: COVID-19 vaccines were well-tolerated by the IEI patients, and a full course of immunization was associated with lower hospitalization rates and a shorter duration of COVID-19 symptoms.

Effect of promoter type and synthesis method on catalytic performance of Fe-Mn based FT-olefin catalysts.

Direct production of light olefins, building blocks of chemical industry, can be attained by developing efficient catalysts for Fischer-Tropsch synthesis (FTS). The nature of FTS complicates the catalyst development process as the product distribution is affected by the components and the preparation methods of the catalyst. In this work, high-throughput (HT) methodology is employed to overcome this problem by testing many different catalyst formulations. Fast performance screening of 40 different α-Al2O3 supported Fe-Mn based catalysts promoted with Cu, K and Ni, using different impregnation agents, was performed in a HT test system at atmospheric pressure. Promising catalyst candidates identified by HT analysis were further subjected to high pressure FTS in a conventional system. Results indicate that coupled with Mn, Ni promoted CH4 production, Cu increased CO conversion, K enhanced olefin selectivity and olefin-to-paraffin ratio. In double promotion of Cu and K, Cu balanced the activity and stability loss due to K, while K enhanced olefin selectivity. n-pentane aided impregnation slightly enhanced catalytic performance. Differences observed in catalytic performance were regarded as related to the structural changes caused by promoter and impregnation type based on characterization data obtained by H2-TPR, XRD, SEM, EDS mapping and N2 adsorption.