ABSTRACT
The evaluation of specific IgE by using appropriate immunoassays represents a useful alternative diagnostic procedure where skin prick tests (SPTs) are not conclusive in clarifying the etiological role of suspected allergens. This study compares the results of the evaluation of specific IgE by using the CARLA system vs. other commercially available immunoassays (CAP system, Ala-STAT Medical system, ALLERgen IFCI Clone System) carried out on the same blood samples obtained from allergic/SPTs negative patients and vs. SPTs. We evaluated serum specific IgE produced against five selected allergens (Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus, Olea europaea, Parietaria judaica, Lolium perenne and Phleum pratense) by using these immunoassays and the correlations between the results of SPTs and IgE evaluations. We demonstrated a good correlation between these last parameters including a high degree of sensitivity and specificity. The reproducibility of the CARLA system was very high by comparing the results obtained by two different laboratories. The results of the CARLA system were well correlated to those of other well-known immunoassays such as CAP system and Ala STAT system. In conclusion, the CARLA system represents an efficient and reliable immunoassay for the evaluation of serum specific IgE.
Subject(s)
Antibodies, Anti-Idiotypic/blood , Hypersensitivity/diagnosis , Immunoglobulin E/blood , Patch Tests/methods , Radioallergosorbent Test , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Antibodies, Anti-Idiotypic/analysis , Antibody Specificity , Child , Child, Preschool , Cohort Studies , Female , Humans , Hypersensitivity/immunology , Immunoglobulin E/analysis , Linear Models , Male , Middle Aged , Sensitivity and SpecificityABSTRACT
A body of evidence highlights the fact that macrolides may not only enhance the host defence system through increased cytokine synthesis by host cells but also exhibit anti-inflammatory activity by including anti-inflammatory cytokines. Several authors have stressed the possibility that macrolides are useful in the treatment of asthma because of their antimicrobial activity rather than any anti-inflammatory action. However, the mechanism of action of macrolides in improving asthma and reducing airway responsiveness is speculated not to be due to their antibiotic properties, especially when these agents are active in noninfectious asthma. The steroid-sparing effect of macrolide antibiotics has been postulated to contribute to their beneficial actions in the treatment of asthma. Nevertheless, a number of studies have shown that macrolides antibiotics have an anti-inflammatory effect which is independent of their antibiotic action or any influence on corticosteroid metabolism. Macrolides may be useful in the treatment of patients with steroid-dependent asthma, probably because they inhibit eosinophilic inflammation. It has also been suggested that the effect of macrolides on bronchial hyperresponsiveness is mediated by their inhibitory action on superoxide production and chemotaxis of polymorphonuclear neutrophils and the mixed lymphocyte reaction. In any case, it is clear that the mechanism of action of macrolides in asthmatic syndrome is not unequivocal. Only well-designed and -conducted clinical studies are capable of assessing the efficacy and safety of immunosuppressive macrolides in the treatment of asthma.
Subject(s)
Anti-Asthmatic Agents/therapeutic use , Anti-Bacterial Agents/pharmacology , Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Anti-Inflammatory Agents/therapeutic use , Asthma/drug therapy , Asthma/physiopathology , Bronchial Hyperreactivity/drug therapy , Humans , Troleandomycin/therapeutic useABSTRACT
Cefaclor advanced formulation (cefaclor AF) is an extended-release form of the oral cephalosporin cefaclor. When cefaclor AF 750 mg twice-daily and cefaclor immediate release 500 mg three-times-a-day are compared there is a skew to the right of the pharmacokinetic profile and higher levels are achieved. Based on this pharmacokinetic finding, we examined the relationship between the bacterial susceptibility to cefaclor (MIC), the achieved cefaclor AF serum and sputum concentrations, and in vivo eradication of the bacteria in 36 patients with acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis. The mean peak concentrations in serum and sputum 5 h after administration were 8.6 microg/ml (95% CI: 8.1 microg/ml - 9.1 microg/ml) and 1.5 microg/ml (95% CI: 1.4 microg/ml - 1.7 microg/ml), respectively. Cefaclor was always detectable 8 h after administration. At post therapy, treatment was successful in 31 (86.1%) patients. Cefaclor concentrations in serum persisted above the MIC for more than 40% of dosing interval in 31 subjects, and those in sputum in 24 patients. Treatment was successful in all subjects with percent of time above the MIC in serum of >40%, whereas the time that levels in sputum stayed above the MIC was not the pharmacodynamic parameter that correlated best with therapeutic efficacy for cefaclor. Our data demonstrate that when cefaclor AF is dosed twice-daily, the in vivo pharmacodynamic susceptibility breakpoint is 8 microg/ml. The good activity and pharmacokinetics of cefaclor AF provide serum concentrations higher than the MIC of Haemophilus influenzae, Streptococcus pneumoniae, and Moraxella catarrhalis for more than 40% of the validated dosing interval. Therefore, it might be considered for first choice treatment of acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis.
