Cyclosporine for omalizumab-refractory chronic urticaria: a report of five cases.

BACKGROUND: While both the AAAAI/ACAAI and the EAACI/GA2LEN/EuroGuiDerm/APAAACI guidelines recommend starting cyclosporine for patients with chronic urticaria who have had an inadequate response to omalizumab, many clinicians are hesitant to initiate cyclosporine due to paucity of clinical data. The objective of this study was to report real-life clinical outcomes in adult patients with chronic urticaria who had an inadequate response to omalizumab and were switched from omalizumab to cyclosporine. Medical records of adult patients with chronic urticaria who had an inadequate response with omalizumab and were later treated with cyclosporine were reviewed retrospectively. Data pertaining to treatment method, clinical response, and adverse effects were recorded. RESULTS/PRESENTATION OF CASES: Five patients with omalizumab-refractory chronic urticaria, three of whom also had angioedema and one with an inducible urticaria, were treated with low doses of oral cyclosporine (1-3 mg/kg/d). Four of five patients in this case series had complete resolution of symptoms with oral cyclosporine, while continuing other standard therapies. Systemic side effects occurred in three patients which prompted drug discontinuation in two patients. DISCUSSION: Cyclosporine alone was effective in inducing urticaria control in adult patients with chronic urticaria who had an inadequate response to omalizumab, though the impact of cyclosporine was limited by reversible adverse effects. Adverse effects were associated with pre-existing medical conditions. As novel chronic urticaria therapies are being investigated, this experience highlights the importance of uncovering chronic urticaria subtypes which tend to respond to cyclosporine, while providing alternative treatments with better tolerability.

Factors Associated With Asthma Biologic Prescribing and Primary Adherence Among Adults in a Large Health System.

BACKGROUND: The availability of asthma biologics may not benefit all patients equally. OBJECTIVE: We sought to identify patient characteristics associated with asthma biologic prescribing, primary adherence, and effectiveness. METHODS: A retrospective, observational cohort study of 9,147 adults with asthma who established care with a Penn Medicine asthma subspecialist was conducted using Electronic Health Record data from January 1, 2016, to October 18, 2021. Multivariable regression models were used to identify factors associated with (1) receipt of a new biologic prescription; (2) primary adherence, defined as receiving a dose in the year after receiving the prescription, and (3) oral corticosteroid (OCS) bursts in the year after the prescription. RESULTS: Factors associated with a new prescription, which was received by 335 patients, included being a woman (odds ratio [OR] 0.66; P = .002), smoking currently (OR 0.50; P = .04), having an asthma hospitalization in the prior year (OR 2.91; P < .001), and having 4+ OCS bursts in the prior year (OR 3.01; P < .001). Reduced primary adherence was associated with Black race (incidence rate ratio 0.85; P < .001) and Medicaid insurance (incidence rate ratio 0.86; P < .001), although most in these groups, 77.6% and 74.3%, respectively, still received a dose. Nonadherence was associated with patient-level barriers in 72.2% of cases and health insurance denial in 22.2%. Having more OCS bursts after receiving a biologic prescription was associated with Medicaid insurance (OR 2.69; P = .047) and biologic days covered (OR 0.32 for 300-364 d vs 14-56 d; P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: In a large health system, primary adherence to asthma biologics varied by race and insurance type, whereas nonadherence was primarily explained by patient-level barriers.

Multisystem Inflammation and Organ Dysfunction After BNT162b2 Messenger RNA Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccination.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has to date granted approval or emergency use authorization to three vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and coronavirus disease 2019. In clinical trials and real-use observational studies, the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 messenger RNA coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine, as well as the Moderna mRNA-1273 messenger RNA coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine, have demonstrated high efficacy and few adverse events. CASE SUMMARY: A 20-year-old male college student in good health developed tinnitus and hematuria shortly after vaccination and progressed swiftly to a syndrome of: systemic inflammation; acute kidney injury requiring hemodialysis; acute, bilateral, complete sensorineural hearing loss; radiographic evidence of acute multifocal ischemic strokes; pericardial effusion complicated by tamponade physiology requiring pericardial evacuation; pleural effusions requiring evacuation; and systemic capillary leak. An extensive clinical and research investigation, including cytokine analysis, whole blood cytometry by time of flight, and whole exome sequencing, did not reveal a definitive explanatory mechanism. CONCLUSION: While the overall safety profile of the BNT162b2 coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine remains excellent for the general population, rare serious events have been reported. In this report, we describe a case of multisystem inflammation and organ dysfunction of unknown mechanism beginning shortly after administration of the first dose of BNT162b2 coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine in a previously healthy recipient.