One-Bag 8-Step Ferric Carboxymaltose Desensitization Protocol for Patients with a History of Hypersensitivity Reactions to Iron Preparations.

INTRODUCTION: Iron deficiency is the most common cause of anemia in both sexes, although it is more common in women. Intravenous (IV) iron replacement is preferred in patients who cannot tolerate oral treatment or when iron stores need to be replenished rapidly. In this study, we wanted to share the ferric carboxymaltose (FCM) desensitization protocol that we self-created and successfully applied. METHODS: This retrospective cross-sectional study included patients with a history of hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) to IV or oral iron replacement and patients who were planned to receive IV iron replacement but were referred to the allergy clinic because of have risk factors (atopic diseases, history of HSR to other drugs, high serum tryptase levels, etc.) for HSRs. Before desensitization, some of the patients underwent skin tests (skin prick test and intradermal test) with FCM, and the results were recorded. Skin tests were not performed in patients with a history of drug use (antihistamine, systemic steroid, omalizumab, etc.) that affected the results of skin tests. All patients underwent a one-bag 8-step desensitization protocol with 500 mg FCM and were observed for 2 h after desensitization. RESULTS: A total of 15 patients (14 females and 1 male) with a mean age of 41.13 ± 11.18 years were included in the study. When the patients were evaluated in terms of the risk of allergic reactions according to their clinical history, 8 patients had a history of anaphylaxis with iron preparations (FCM, n = 4; ferric hydroxide sucrose, n = 2; iron [II] glycine sulfate, n = 1; and iron [III] hydroxide polymaltose, n = 1), and 7 patients had a history of HSR other than anaphylaxis with iron preparations (urticaria, n = 6 [FCM, n = 2; iron (II) glycine sulfate, n = 2; and iron (III) hydroxide polymaltose, n = 2] and urticaria + angioedema [ferric hydroxide sucrose, n = 1]). Desensitization was successfully completed in all patients. No HSR was observed during or after the procedure in any of the patients. CONCLUSION: IV iron replacement is a very effective method, especially in cases where iron stores need to be replenished more rapidly. In patients with a history of iron HSR or at risk of developing HSR, replacement can be safely performed without an allergic reaction with successful desensitization protocols.

Erratum to "Does NSAID exacerbated respiratory disease (N-ERD) accompanying severe asthma affect biological treatment response? Efficacy of omalizumab and mepolizumab in N-ERD" [World Allergy Organ (2023) 100817].

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1016/j.waojou.2023.100817.].

Single center two years' experience of Ozaki procedure: Early follow-up.

The Ozaki Procedure is an innovative surgical technique aiming of aortic valve neocuspidization using glutaraldehyde-treated autologous pericardium was first developed by Ozaki et al in 2007. With this newly developed technique, valve replacement was achieved without using prosthetic material due to both aortic stenosis and aortic insufficiency. Between December 2020 and December 2022, a total of 59 patients were operated on with the Ozaki Procedure due to aortic valve pathologies in our center. We evaluated the pre- and postoperative as well as the first-month data of a total of 44 patients with isolated the Ozaki Procedure and compared their echocardiographic changes. Patients with isolated aortic valve pathology were included in the study. Fifteen patients who underwent simultaneous coronary artery bypass surgery and Ozaki Procedure were excluded from the analysis. In the first month after the operation, n:2 (%4.5) patients died. When the preoperative and postoperative 1st month echocardiographic data of the remaining patients were compared, it was found that the decrease in mean gradient, max gradient and peak velocity values in the aortic valve was statistically significant. This is due to the fact that reaching neo-valves has very similar hemodynamics to the native aortic valve. Aortic valve neocuspidization by Ozaki Procedure may be a viable alternative to both surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) and transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Its popularity and application is increasing all over the world. Short and mid-term results are available in the literature. The short and mid-term results are good, and the long-term results are hopeful.

The phenotypic heterogeneity of obese and nonobese patients with severe asthma and comparison of omalizumab-mepolizumab treatment efficiency in these patients.

In obese severe asthmatics, the degree of type 2 inflammation may vary according to their atopic status and past smoking history. In this study, we aimed to analyze the clinical and physiopathological features of obese and nonobese severe asthmatics treated with omalizumab or mepolizumab treatment. In addition we aimed to compare the clinical, spirometric outcomes and total peripheral eosinophilic count (TEC) changes after treatment with these 2 biologic agents in obese and nonobese groups. In this retrospective, cross sectional study, 121 severe asthmatic treated with biologic agents (omalizumab = 88 or mepolizumab = 33) for at least 16 weeks were included. Obese (n: 44) and nonobese severe asthmatics (n: 77) were analyzed according to whether they provided a ≥ 10 pack/years (p/y) or <10 p/y smoking history and were found to be atopic. Obese and nonobese groups were compared in terms of the change in the asthma control test, asthma attacks, TEC, and forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1) after treatment. In patients with ≥10 p/y smoking history, nonobese group had a significantly higher TEC compared to obese group [median (min-max) 660 cells/µL (200-1500) vs 300 cells/µL (110-770); p: 0.013]. Within the nonobese group, nonatopic patients had a significantly higher TEC compared to atopic patients [median (min-max) 1200 cells/µL (100-2100) vs 310 cells/µL (0-2730); p: 0.021]. Both biologic agents had similar effects on improving asthma control test and in reducing asthma attacks; however, mepolizumab was more effective in suppressing TEC. The improvement in FEV1 in obese group following biologic 2 agents was very similar but in nonobese group, mepolizumab was found to be superior (510 mL vs. 295 mL; p: 0.034). In our real-life study, nonobese severe asthmatics with ≥10 p/y smoking history and those that were nonatopic had higher TEC. Compared to omalizumab, mepolizumab was superior at reducing TEC in all asthmatics and in improving FEV1 in nonobese group.

Does NSAID exacerbated respiratory disease (N-ERD) accompanying severe asthma affect biological treatment response? Efficacy of omalizumab and mepolizumab in N-ERD.

Introduction: Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)-exacerbated respiratory disease (N-ERD) accompanies severe asthma in about 15% of the patients and may adversely affect the prognosis. Omalizumab and mepolizumab are biologics used in patients with severe asthma. The objective of this study is to assess the respiratory improvements, after these biologics in severe asthmatic patients stratifed by the presence of concomitant Non-erosive reflux disease (N-ERD) and the effect of omalizumab and mepolizumab in severe asthmatics with N-ERD. Material & method: The population of this three-center, retrospective, cross-sectional, observational study comprised patients using omalizumab or mepolizumab for severe asthma. Patients administered these biologics for severe asthma were comparatively analyzed for the presence of N-ERD; asthma control test (ACT) scores, number of attacks, and the changes in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) were assessed. Subsequently, patients who were found to have N-ERD were analyzed using visual analog scale (VAS) in terms of the changes in their nasal parameters (ie, nasal obstruction, facial pain, anterior-posterior rhinitis, and hyposmia), according to whether they use omalizumab or mepolizumab. Results: The use of biologics resulted in a significant improvement in ACT and FEV1 and reduction in attacks in 28 severe asthmatics with N-ERD and 125 without N-ERD. Although both biologics resulted in a significant improvement in the respiratory parameters, omalizumab treatment resulted in a significant improvement in nasal parameters except hyposmia, mepolizumab treatment resulted in a significant improvement only in posterior rhinitis, and nasal obstruction among the nasal parameters. Conclusion: This study is the first to address both omalizumab and mepolizumab treatments in severe asthmatics with N-ERD. The improvement in nasal parameters was more pronounced in patients who were administered omalizumab. Large-scale randomized controlled studies are needed to corroborate the findings of this study.

[Vaccination approach in patients with an allergic reaction to COVID-19 vaccines or at risk of developing allergic reactions]. / COVID-19 asilarina alerjik reaksiyon gösteren veya alerjik reaksiyon gelisme riski olan hastalarda asilama yaklasimi.

Introduction: There is consensus that patients at risk of developing an allergic reaction to COVID-19 vaccines should be evaluated by an immunologist-allergist to determine whether vaccination should be recommended. We wanted to share our experiences in the management of these high-risk patients, from diagnostic tests in allergological evaluation to the vaccination process. Materials and Methods: Our retrospective cross-sectional study included patients who had previously developed an allergic reaction to COVID-19 vaccines or drugs and therefore were referred to our allergy and immunology clinic. Prick and intradermal tests were performed on all patients with methylprednisolone acetate (Depo-Medrol®, Pfizer) 40 mg/mL containing polyethylene Glycol (PEG) and triamcinolone acetonide (Kenacort®, Deva) 40 mg/mL containing polysorbate 80. While vaccination with desensitization was recommended for all patients with positive skin tests, split-dose vaccination was recommended for patients with negative skin tests. After explaining the risks and benefits, the choice of the vaccine (Pfizer/BioNTech or Sinovac/ CoronoVac) was left to the patients' discretion. Result: A total of 41 patients, 10 males, and 31 females, with a mean age of 42.37 ± 14.177 years were included. Eighteen patients with a history of allergy after COVID-19 vaccines were analyzed according to the type of reaction and type of vaccine administered (Pfizer/BioNTech/Coronovac; Anaphylaxis: 4/1, Urticaria: 11/2). Moreover, there was a history of drug allergy in 23 patients who had not been vaccinated before. Skin tests with PEG were positive in a total of seven patients while skin tests with polysorbate 80 were negative in all patients. No allergic reaction developed in seven patients who underwent desensitization and in 34 patients who received a split dose. Conclusions: Considering the potentially life-saving benefits of vaccination in a global pandemic environment, it is a safe and effective method to administer vaccines to at-risk patients using desensitization or split dosing techniques, based on their sensitivity status determined through a PEG skin test. This approach allows for the avoidance of preventing access to vaccines, while still ensuring the safety of patients.

Comparison of omalizumab and mepolizumab treatment efficacy in patients with atopic and eosinophilic "Overlap" severe asthma: Biological agent preference in atopic-eosinophilic severe asthma.

Approximately 1-third of patients with severe asthma are candidates for both omalizumab and mepolizumab treatment. We aimed to compare the clinical, spirometric and inflammatory efficacy of these 2 biologics in atopic and eosinophilic "overlap" severe asthma patients. In our 3-center retrospective cross-sectional observational study, the data of patients who received omalizumab or mepolizumab for at least 16 weeks to treat severe asthma were examined. Atopic (perennial allergen sensitivity and total IgE level 30-1500 IU/mL) and eosinophilic (blood eosinophil counts ≥150 cells/µL in admission; or ≥300 cells/µL in the previous year) patients with asthma suitable for both biologics were included in the study. Post-treatment changes in the asthma control test (ACT) score, number of attacks, forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), and eosinophil count were compared. The rates of any biological responder patient were compared according to whether they had high eosinophil counts (≥500 cells/µL vs <500 cells/µL). Total of 181 patients data were evaluated, of the 74 atopic and eosinophilic overlap patients included in the study, 56 were receiving omalizumab and 18 were receiving mepolizumab. When omalizumab and mepolizumab treatment efficacies were compared, there was no difference in terms of the reduction in attacks and improvement in ACT. The decrease in eosinophil levels in patients in the mepolizumab arm was significantly higher than that in patients in the omalizumab arm (46.3% vs 87.8%; P < .001). The improvement in FEV1 was greater with mepolizumab treatment, although the difference was not significant (215 mL vs 380 mL; P = .053). It has been shown that having high eosinophil counts does not affect the clinical and spirometric responder patient rates for either biological condition. The success of omalizumab and mepolizumab treatment is similar in patients with atopic and eosinophilic overlap with severe asthma. However, because the baseline patient inclusion criteria are not compatible, head-to-head studies comparing both biological agents are required.

Tradition or Innovation in Sternal Dehiscence Repair: Robicsek Versus Titanium Plate.

Objectives: Sternotomy is still the most commonly used incision in cardiac surgery. Sternal complications are seen at a rate of 0.5% to 6.1%. Sternal dehiscence increases morbidity and mortality after cardiac surgery. To prevent dehiscence, the search for alternative sternum closure methods continues today. Titanium plates produced for this purpose can also be used in patients who are re-operated due to sternal dehiscence. In our study, we investigated the effects of titanium plate repair and robicsek repair on the results in patients who were reoperated due to sternal dehiscence. Methods: Thirty-four patients who underwent reoperation due to sternal detachment in our hospital between September 2013 and December 2020 and had no signs of infection in the pre-operative period were analyzed retrospectively. The patients were divided into three groups according to the surgical method applied. These groups are as follows: Group 1: The cases in which the robicsek method was used, Group 2: the cases in which the titanium plate method was used, and Group 3: The cases where the robicsek + titanium plate methods were used together. Results: There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of basic demographic characteristics and risk factors, leading to sternal dehiscence. There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of mortality and length of hospital stay. Considering the infection rates in the post-operative period, 20% and 21.4% post-operative infections were detected in Group 1 and Group 3, respectively, while 70% post-operative infection was observed in Group 2, which was repaired only with the Robicsek technique (p<0.05). Conclusion: As supported by most studies in the literature, titanium plate application provides a superior sternum stabilization compared to the classical wire cerclage method. When evaluated in terms of cost-effectiveness, titanium plate method can be applied in high-risk patients in terms of sternal dehiscence.