Results of omalizumab treatment in chronic eosinophilic pneumonia: Real-life data.

Introduction: Recurrences occur when corticosteroid therapy is discontinued or reduced during the treatment of chronic eosinophilic pneumonia (CEP). The probability of recurrence is once in 50% of patients and twice or more in 25%. In such instances, new treatment options are deemed necessary. This study aims to assess the efficacy of omalizumab treatment as a steroid-sparing drug in patients with CEP. Materials and Methods: The clinical features of patients treated with omalizumab for recurrent CEP were evaluated retrospectively before and after treatment. All data from patients and diagnoses were reviewed. The effects of treatment on recurrence rate, oral corticosteroid (OCS) use and lung functions, peripheral eosinophil values, and symptom scores were evaluated. Radiological regression was also evaluated. Result: In the final analysis, we included ten patients with a median follow-up of 22 months after initiation of omalizumab. During this follow-up period, the results were associated with a significant reduction in the number of asthma attacks per year, the number of CEP relapses, the rate of hospitalization, the amount of corticosteroids consumed daily, and the total corticosteroid dose. In addition, improvement was observed in the symptom scores and lung functions of the patients. Systemic steroids were completely discontinued in two patients receiving omalizumab treatment. In other patients, the mean steroid dose was reduced by 77.2 percent in the first year of omalizumab treatment and 82 percent in the second year, respectively. Nevertheless, there was no elevation in peripheral eosinophil count, and radiological regression was observed. Conclusions: Omalizumab can be an effective treatment for CEP and can be used as a steroid-sparing agent.

What is the Best Way to Diagnose Possible Asthma Patients with Negative Bronchodilator Reversibility Tests?

Objective: The best method and strategy for the diagnosis of asthma remains unclear, especially in patients with negative bronchodilator reversibility test (BDRT). In our study, we aimed to investigate the diagnostic yield of peak expiratory flow (PEF) variability for this patient group. Methods: A total of 50 patients with suspected asthma, all with negative BDR test, were included in the study. Demographic information and symptoms were recorded and PEF variability was monitored for 2 weeks. Metacolinbronchial provocation test (mBPT) was performed. Asthma was diagnosed when PEF variability ≥20% and/or positive mBPT was observed. Results: 30 of 50 patients were diagnosed with asthma. After 1 month, 17 patients were evaluated for treatment outcomes. The sensitivity and specificity of PEF variability for different cut-off values (≥20%, >15% and >10%) were 61.5-83.3, 88.5-62.5 and 100-16.7, respectively. One of the most important findings of our study was the absence of variable airflow limitation or airway hyper reactivity in 39% patients with a previous diagnosis of asthma. Multiple logistic regression analysis revealed that a low baseline FEF25-75 value was an independent predictive factor for the diagnosis of asthma (p= 0.05). Conclusion: The most efficient diagnostic test for asthma is still unclear due to many factors. Our study is one of the few studies on this subject. Although current diagnostic recommendations generally recommend a PEF variability of 10% for the diagnosis of asthma, this threshold may not be appropriate for the BDR-negative patient group. Our results suggest using a threshold value of <15% for PEF variability when excluding asthma and ≥20% when confirming the diagnosis of asthma in patients with clinically suspected but unproven reversibility. Furthermore, FEF25-75 is considered to be an important diagnostic parameter that should be included in diagnostic recommendations for asthma.

Evaluation of the Clinical Features and Laboratory Data of Patients with Severe Eosinophilic Asthma Classified as Super-Responders, Partial Responders, or Nonresponders to Mepolizumab Treatment: A Real-Life Study.

INTRODUCTION: Mepolizumab is a treatment option in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma, which inhibits interleukin-5. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical features and laboratory data of patients with severe eosinophilic asthma who were classified as super-responders, partial responders, or nonresponders to mepolizumab treatment. METHODS: In this retrospective real-life study, the clinical features and laboratory data were compared between groups of patients with severe eosinophilic asthma who were classified as super-responders, partial responders, or nonresponders to mepolizumab treatment. RESULTS: Evaluation was made of a total of 55 patients, comprising 17 (30.9%) males and 38 (69.1%) females with a mean age of 51.28 ± 14.32 years. All the patients were receiving mepolizumab treatment for severe eosinophilic asthma, with 17 (30.9%) patients evaluated as super-responders, 26 (47.3%) as partial responders, and 12 (21.8%) as nonresponders. After mepolizumab treatment, there was a statistically significant decrease in asthma exacerbations, the number of oral corticosteroids (OCSs) used, the rate of hospitalization due to asthma attacks, and the eosinophil count (cells/µL) (p < 0.001, p < 0.001, p < 0.001, and <0.001, respectively). A statistically significant increase was determined in the forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) value (p = 0.010) and asthma control test (ACT) score (p < 0.001) after mepolizumab treatment. The baseline eosinophil count, eosinophil/lymphocyte ratio and FEV1 (%) values were significantly higher in the super-responder and partial responder groups (p < 0.001, p = 0.002, and p = 0.002, respectively). The baseline ACT score and the rate of chronic sinusitis with nasal polyps were significantly higher in the partial responder group (p = 0.004, p = 0.015, respectively). The rate of regular OCS use before mepolizumab treatment was significantly higher in the nonresponder group (p = 0.049). As a result of the receiver operating characteristics curve analysis, the blood eosinophil count (area under the curve [AUC]: 0.967, p < 0.001), eosinophil/lymphocyte ratio (AUC: 0.921, p < 0.001), and FEV1 (%) (AUC: 0.828, p = 0.002) were found to have diagnostic value in predicting the response to mepolizumab treatment in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma. CONCLUSION: Baseline eosinophil count, eosinophil/lymphocyte ratio, and FEV1 (%) were found to be important predictors of response to mepolizumab treatment. Further studies are needed to define the characterization of mepolizumab responders in the real world.

Evaluation of the clinical features and laboratory data of patients with severe asthma classified as super-responder or non super-responder to omalizumab treatment: a single-center real-life study.

INTRODUCTION: Omalizumab is used for the treatment of severe allergic asthma. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical features and laboratory data of patients with severe allergic asthma classified as super-responder or non super-responder to omalizumab. METHODS: Comparisons were made of the laboratory data and clinical features of patients with severe allergic asthma. Patients who had no asthma exacerbation, no oral corticosteroid (OCS) use, asthma control test (ACT) score >20 and forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) >80% were considered super-responder after omalizumab. RESULTS: A total of 90 patients were included in the study, comprising 19 (21.1%) males. The age at onset of asthma, allergic rhinitis rate, number of endoscopic sinus surgeries (ESS), intranasal corticosteroid (INS) use, baseline FEV 1 (%) and ACT score were significantly higher in the omalizumab super-responder group (p = 0.013, p = 0.015, p = 0.002, p = 0.001, p = 0.001 and p < 0.001, respectively). The duration of asthma, rate of Chronic Rhinosinusitis with Nasal Polyps (CRSwNP), regular use of OCS, baseline eosinophil count and eosinophil-to-lymphocyte ratio were significantly higher in the omalizumab non super-responder group (p = 0.015, p < 0.001, p = 0.004, p < 0.001 and p < 0.001, respectively). Blood eosinophil count (AUC: 0.187, p < 0.001), eosinophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (AUC: 0.150, p < 0.001) and FEV1 (%) (AUC:0.779, p = 0.001) were determined to have diagnostic value in predicting the treatment response to omalizumab of patients with severe allergic asthma. CONCLUSION: High-blood eosinophil levels, CRSwNP and low pretreatment lung capacity may affect omalizumab treatment response in patients with severe allergic asthma. These results should be supported by further multicenter real-life studies.

Identification of Risk Factors and Cross-Reactivity of Local Anesthetics Hypersensitivity: Analysis of 14-Years' Experience.

PURPOSE: Local anesthetics (LA) are widely used and adverse drug reactions (ADR) occur in 2.5-10%, but hypersensitivity reactions are rare (ranging between 0% and 4.3%). Risk is so overestimated causing too many allergy clinic referrals. There are limited and also conflicting results over the management of LA allergy. We aimed to find out who should be referred to an allergy clinic for a LA allergy testing, to define the subjects with an increased risk of LA allergy and to assess the need for testing for identifying alternative LA. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of patients referred to our clinic for diagnostic workup of LA hypersensitivity from 2006 to 2020. RESULTS: In our cohort of 398 patients, tests were positive in 14 (3.52%) of them. Personal history of ADR with LA was the only independent risk factor for positive test (RR=4.007, p=0.033). Presence of generalized cutaneous symptoms and hypotension during past reaction were independent predictors of positive test (RR=9.043, p=0.021 and RR=10.445, p=0.038, respectively). The negative predictive value of intradermal test at dilution of 1:100 for immediate-type reaction was high (97.56%). Also, we demonstrated cross-reactivity within the amide-group LAs and co-occurrence of immediate- and delayed-type reactions. CONCLUSION: Only patients with an LA-induced ADR should be referred to an allergy clinic. History of generalized cutaneous symptoms and/or hypotension during the reaction may define subjects with an increased risk of LA allergy. A stepwise test procedure may start with skin tests especially for these patients with increased risk factors. In presence of LA allergy, alternative LA should always be confirmed by performing a challenge test.