[Registry of Members of the Association of Patients with Hereditary Angioedema of Perú]. / Registro de miembros de la Asociación de Pacientes con Angioedema Hereditario de Perú.

OBJECTIVE: To report the registry of the HAE Peruvian patient's association. METHODS: We used the questionnaire of the Latin American HAE committee. Consent was requested from the patient's association to report the data. RESULTS: We report data of 63 patients, 51 Female, 12 Male, range age between 6 to 74 years. Nine under 18 years old, 5/9 between 6 to 13 years. Forty-five HAE C1-INH type I, 12 HAE-FXII, 5 HAE UNK, 1 AAE. Symptoms onset average age in 56/62 HAE patients was 16.8. In a group of 50/62 adult HAE patients, the average diagnostic delay approximately was 19.3 years. Laboratory tests: we can perform C4 complement C1-inhibitor antigenic and functional tests. Treatments: The patients have access to tranexamic acid (TA) and attenuated androgens. We do not have registered specific long-term prophylaxis treatments. We used moderate/high doses of TA, in most patients up to 6 gr i.v./in 24 hours, we start with the treatment immediately the HAE acute crisis is beginning, it helps to the HAE attacks are less symptomatic, resolves in a few days and decrease the frequency. CONCLUSIONS: We present 63 members of the Association of Patients with Hereditary Angioedema of Perú. We have improved blood tests for HAE diagnosis. Moderate and high doses of Tranexamic Acid are used for prophylaxis and acute crisis respectively, with acceptable response. No deaths have been reported due to HAE crisis in the patient's association.

OBJETIVO: Reportar el registro de pacientes de la Asociación de Pacientes con Angioedema Hereditario de Perú, AEH. MÉTODOS: Se utilizó el cuestionario del Comité de AEH, de la Sociedad Latinoamericana de Alergia, Asma e Inmunología (SLAAI). Se solicitó el consentimiento a la Asociación de Pacientes para reportar los datos. RESULTADOS: Se reportan datos de 63 pacientes, 51 mujeres y 12 hombres, en un rango de edad entre 6 y 74 años. Nueve menores de 18 años, 5/9, entre 6 y 13 años. 45 con AEH-C1-INH tipo I, 12 AEH-FXII, 5 AEH-D, 1 AEA. La edad promedio de inicio de síntomas en 56/62 pacientes fue de 16,8. En 50/62 pacientes adultos con AEH, el promedio de tiempo de espera en el diagnóstico fue de 19,3 años. Laboratorio: Se puede desarrollar C4 complemento, C1-Inhibidor antigénico y funcional. Tratamientos: Se cuenta con acceso al ácido tranexámico (AT) y andrógenos atenuados. No se cuenta con tratamientos específicos para profilaxis de largo plazo. Se utilizaron dosis moderadas/altas de (AT), hasta 6 g por I V/ en 24 horas, inmediatamente, al inicio de las crisis de AEH, ayuda a que los ataques no sean tan intensos y tengan menor duración y frecuencia. CONCLUSIONES: Se presentan 63 miembros de la Asociación de Pacientes con Angioedema Hereditario de Perú. Se han mejorado los exámenes sanguíneos para el diagnóstico del AEH. Se utilizaron dosis moderadas/altas de ácido tranexámico con aceptable respuesta en los pacientes. No se han presentado decesos por crisis de AEH en los miembros de la Asociación.

[Clinical case of anaphylaxis due to eye drops]. / Caso clínico de anafilaxia por gotas oftálmicas.

BACKGROUND: Anaphylaxis is a severe systemic allergic reaction that can be life-threatening, timely diagnosis and treatment is required in these patients, one of the most frequent triggers is pharmacological. OBJECTIVE: To report the case of a patient who presented anaphylaxis due to eye drops. CASE REPORT: A 7-year-old male with a history of rhinitis and asthma with good control. It started with itchy eyes, ophthalmic drops were administered, composition: Polyethylene glycol 400, 0.4%, Propylene glycol 3 mg, polyquad 0.001%, presenting at 15 minutes an episode of anaphylaxis initially characterized by pruritus and intense conjunctival erythema, later nausea, vomiting, sweating, weakness, urticaria/facial angioedema and dyspnea were added, this episode was controlled opportunely with Levocetirizine 5 mg sublingual and Betametasona 4 mg intramuscular, progressively improving over the next 2 hours. The patient was evaluated by the Allergist, written recommendations were given to the mother in case this reaction occurred again, the use of the drops was prohibited, and the performance of skin test and a probable conjunctival provocation protocolized with the ophthalmic drops were pending. Accidentally 2 months later the patient was re-exposed with the same eye drops, presenting a similar reaction 15 minutes after the administration of the medication, they went to the emergency room where he received antihistamine and corticosteroid intravenous treatment, after this re-exposure is confirmed to the ophthalmic drops mentioned above as a trigger of anaphylaxis in this patient. CONCLUSIONS: We present a case of conjunctival anaphylaxis after application of eye drops, confirmed by re-exposure to the drug. It is essential to give diagnoses, recommendations with treatments and avoidance of the probable triggering agent of the reaction. The administration of immediate medication when the allergic episode begins in these patients can be vital, even more so when they live far from a health center, as was the case in this patient.

ANTECEDENTES: La anafilaxia es una reacción alérgica sistémica severa que puede llegar a comprometer la vida. Se requiere de un diagnóstico y tratamiento oportuno en estos pacientes, uno de los desencadenantes más frecuente es el farmacológico. OBJETIVO: Reportar el caso de un paciente que presentó anafilaxia a gotas oftálmicas. REPORTE DE CASO: Varón de siete años de edad con antecedentes de rinitis y asma con buen control. Inició con picor ocular, se le administraron gotas oftálmicas, composición: Polietilenglicol 400, 0,4%, Propilenglicol 3 mg, polyquad 0,001%, y a los 15 minutos presentó un episodio de anafilaxia caracterizado, inicialmente, por prurito y eritema conjuntival intenso; posteriormente, presentó náuseas, vómito, sudoración, debilidad, urticaria/angioedema facial y disnea. Este episodio fue controlado en el momento, con tratamiento de Levoceterizina 5 mg s.l. y Betametasona 4 mg i.m., con mejoría progresiva en las siguientes dos horas. El paciente fue evaluado por la especialidad de alergología. A su madre se dieron recomendaciones por escrito, por si se presentaba nuevamente la reacción. Se prohibió la utilización de las gotas, y quedó pendiente la realización de las pruebas cutáneas y una probable provocación conjuntival protocolizada con las gotas oftálmicas. Accidentalmente, dos meses después se reexpuso al paciente con las mismas gotas oftálmicas, y a los 15 minutos de la administración del medicamento, presentó una reacción similar, por lo que acudieron a emergencias donde recibió tratamiento antihistamínico y corticoides vía i.m.; tras esta reexposición, se confirma a las gotas oftálmicas mencionadas anteriomente, como desencadenantes de anafilaxia en el paciente. CONCLUSIONES: Presentamos un caso sobre anafilaxia por vía conjuntival tras aplicación de gotas oftálmicas, confirmado por la reexposición al fármaco. Es esencial dar diagnósticos, recomendaciones con tratamientos y evitar el probable agente desencadenante de la reacción. La administración de medicación inmediata cuando inicia el episodio alérgico en estos pacientes, puede ser vital, más aún cuando viven lejos de un centro de salud, como era el caso referenciado.

Physician practices and attitudes towards atopic dermatitis in Latin America: A cross-sectional study.

Background: The prevalence of atopic dermatitis (AD) is increasing in developing countries. Different worldwide guidelines have been proposed, but their applicability for AD specialists in Latin American (LA) countries is unknown. Objective: The objective of this study was to explore the medical approach to treating AD in LA countries. Methods: The study population comprised AD specialists (allergists and dermatologists). They completed an electronic survey containing questions about the health system, diagnostic criteria, and pharmacotherapy approach to treating AD. The survey was constructed and validated by the Atopic Dermatitis Committee of the Latin American Society of Allergy Asthma and Immunology (SLAAI) in Spanish and Portuguese. Each member was responsible for distributing the questionnaire through different networks in their respective countries. Results: A total of 284 AD specialists from 13 LA countries completed the questionnaire; among them, 67% were allergists and 33% were dermatologists. Less than 50% of the AD specialists strictly followed guideline recommendations. Among the AD specialists, the European and North American guidelines were more frequently used, and only 16% followed LA guidelines. Dermatologists used the local guidelines less frequently than allergists. Most physicians did not routinely use AD assessment tools (55%). The frequency of the diagnostic tests depends on symptom severity. The availability of some systemic treatments, such as biologics and Janus Kinase (JAK) inhibitors, is not universal in all LA countries. Conclusion: There were marked differences between the specialists, and these differences seemed to be affected by their specialty and each country's healthcare system. New AD education strategies that consider the particularities of the region could allow patients to be more accurately managed. AD assessment tools may provide a way to enhance AD treatment and allow for shared decision-making, patient empowerment, and standardized care.

Aeroallergen immunotherapy associated with reduced risk of severe COVID-19 in 1095 allergic patients.

Introduction: Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) brings along changes in the immune system, restoring dendritic cell function, reducing T2 inflammation and augmenting the regulatory cell activation. Coronavirus disease (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections, interferes with the immune system causing immune suppression during the first phase and over-activation in more advanced disease. We decided to explore the interaction of both in a real-world observational trial. Methods: We registered COVID-19 outcomes in patients with allergic disorders in Latin America, treated with and without AIT. The registry was conducted during the first 1.3 years of the pandemic, with most of the data collected before COVID-19 vaccination was concluded in most countries. Data collection was anonymous via a web-based instrument. Ten countries participated. Results: 630/1095 (57.6%) of the included patients received AIT. Compared to patients without AIT, those treated with AIT had a reduced risk ratio (RR) for COVID-19 lower respiratory symptoms (RR 0.78, 95% CI: 0.6703-0.9024; p = 0.001662) and need for oxygen therapy (RR 0.65, 95% CI: 0.4217-0.9992; p = 0.048). In adherent patients on maintenance sublingual immunotherapy/subcutaneous immunotherapy (SLIT/SCIT) the RR reduction was larger [RR = 0.6136 (95% CI 0.4623-0.8143; p < 0.001) and RR: 0.3495 (95% CI 0.1822-0.6701; p < 0.005), respectively]. SLIT was slightly more effective (NS). We excluded age, comorbidities, level of health care attendance, and type of allergic disorder as confounders, although asthma was related to a higher frequency of severe disease. When analyzing patients with allergic asthma (n = 503) the RR reduction favoring AIT was more pronounced with 30% for lower respiratory symptoms or worse (RR 0.6914, 95% CI 0.5264 to 0.9081, p = 0.0087) and 51% for need of oxygen therapy or worse (RR 0.4868, 95% CI 0.2829-0.8376, p = 0.0082). Among severe allergic patients treated with biologics (n = 24) only 2/24 needed oxygen therapy. There were no critical cases among them. Conclusion: In our registry AIT was associated with reduced COVID-19 severity.