ABSTRACT
Background: There is no description of the drivers of prescription for allergen immunotherapy (AIT) for respiratory allergic diseases. Methods: A prospective, multicentre, observational, non-interventional real-life study was performed in France and Spain for 20 months. Data were gathered using 2 different questionnaires, anonymously collected in an online platform. No names of AIT products were recorded. Multivariate analysis and unsupervised cluster analysis were performed. Results: One hundred and three physicians (50.5% from Spain and 49.5% from France) reported 1735 patients (433 in France and 1302 in Spain), 47.9% males, 64.8% adults with a mean age 26.2 years old. They suffered from allergic rhinitis (99%), allergic conjunctivitis (70.4%), allergic asthma (51.8%), atopic dermatitis (13.9%), and food allergy (9.9%). A clustering analysis based on 13 predefined relevant variables for AIT-prescription identified 5 different clusters, each of them including information regarding doctor's profile and patient demographics, baseline disease characteristics, and main AIT indication: 1) Looking at the future: focusing on asthma prevention (n = 355), 2) Efficacy after discontinuation of AIT (n = 293), 3) Fighting severe allergic disease (n = 322), 4) Looking at the present, facing current symptoms (n = 265) and 5) Doctor's own clinical experience (n = 500). Each one of these clusters have specific patients' and doctors' characteristics, representing distinctive AIT prescription drivers. Conclusion: Using data-driven analysis, we identified for the first time some reasons and patterns of AIT prescriptions in real-life clinical settings. There is no uniform indication for prescribing AIT, which varies amongst patients and doctors with multiple but specific drivers, taking into account several relevant parameters.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Cholinergic urticaria (UCOL) is a highly disabling inducible urticaria triggered by an increase in core body temperature. OBJECTIVE: To explore the safety and efficacy of omalizumab in controlling UCOL. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter randomized mixed double-blind and open-label (first 4 months blinded followed by 8 months open-label) placebo-controlled clinical trial in 22 patients suffering from UCOL who were unresponsive to a double dose of antihistamines. We performed an exercise challenge test during each visit as our main outcome variable. RESULTS: The overall rate of exercise challenge test negative at week 48 was 31.3%, with an average increase in exercise challenge test negative rate of 2.9% points (95% CI, 1.5-4.2) per visit. Statistically significant differences in the negative exercise challenge test rate between the placebo and active intervention groups were not observed during the blinded period (first 4 months of the study). However, from the fourth dose, a progressive improvement was observed. When comparing before and after treatment, statistically significant improvements in all secondary outcome measures were noted after 4 doses (UCOL score: P = .0015; visual analog scale score: P = .0108; days with symptoms: P = .0125) and after 8 doses (UCOL score: P = .0005; chronic urticaria quality of life questionnaire: P = .0105; visual analog scale score: P = .0008; and days with symptoms: P = .0144). In the follow-up visit after the cessation of treatment, the symptoms reappeared, with positive exercise challenge test result and significant increases in all variables. Only 4 of 22 patients remained asymptomatic after 3 months of no treatment. No adverse effects were reported. CONCLUSIONS: This randomized mixed double-blind and open-label placebo-controlled trial showed evidence of the safety and potential efficacy of omalizumab in patients with UCOL.
