Search

This document is a compilation of abstracts from the 2023 CSACI annual scientific meeting, focusing on research studies related to allergy, asthma, and clinical immunology. The abstracts cover a range of topics, including occupational asthma, the use of tezepelumab in severe asthma, and the impact of age of asthma onset on treatment efficacy. The document also includes summaries of case reports and studies on topics such as anaphylaxis, hereditary angioedema, and chronic urticaria. These abstracts provide valuable insights into the findings and implications of each study, contributing to the understanding and treatment of these conditions. [Extracted from the article]

Background: Asthma is a chronic airway inflammatory disease that affects millions of Canadians and often contributes to higher levels of anxiety among patients. Since the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic was a time of increased anxiety and fear among the Canadian population, it was thought that those with asthma may experience heightened anxiety levels due to uncertain access to care, the potential to misinterpret asthma symptoms for symptoms of COVID-19 (or vice versa), and the concern about being treated differently by those around them when experiencing asthma symptoms. Therefore, this study sought to perform a cross-sectional analysis of the asthma-anxiety relationship in adults with and without asthma in the unique context of the COVID-19 pandemic from a Canadian perspective. Methods: This study employed the COVID-19 Associated Anxiety in Allergic Rhinitis and Asthma patients Experiencing Symptoms (CAAARES) survey, consisting of COVID-19-specific questions, the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Assessment-7 (GAD-7) and the Asthma Control Questionnaire-6 (ACQ-6). Data collection occurred through the Qualtrics XM platform and data analyses were conducted with the IBM SPSS Statistics 28 software. Results: A total of 741 valid responses were collected (asthma group, n = 244; control group, n = 497). 31.6% and 26.2% of respondents in the asthma and control groups, respectively, met the diagnostic criteria for GAD. There was no significant difference (p =.067) in mean GAD-7 scores between the two groups. A Hierarchal Multiple Regression (HMR) model was developed, and neither asthma status nor ACQ-6 score had a significant predictive effect on the GAD-7 score. There was a statistically significant (p <.001) weak positive correlation (r =.22) between GAD-7 and ACQ-6 scores. In a simple mediation (SMM) model, perceived COVID-19 stress of others was not identified as a significant mediator of the relationship between ACQ-6 and GAD-7 (indirect effect β = 0.014). Conclusion: Our study of a Canadian cohort demonstrates elevated levels of anxiety overall, amongst both asthma and control groups. While AR status was significantly greater in the asthma group, it was not a significant predictive variable of GAD-7 score. Our data suggests that COVID-19-specific factors appear to have a greater contribution to anxiety than asthma status or control. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale: The Environmental Exposure Unit (EEU), a controlled allergen exposure model of allergic rhinitis (AR), has traditionally utilized seasonal allergens. We sought to clinically validate the use of house dust mite (HDM), a perennial allergen, in the HDM-EEU, a specially designed facility within the larger EEU. Methods: Forty-four HDM-allergic and eleven non-allergic participants were screened and deemed eligible for one of two 3-h exposure sessions in the HDM-EEU. Participants were exposed to a modest or higher HDM target, with blood and nasal brushing samples collected before and after allergen exposure. Symptomatic data, including Total Nasal Symptom Score (TNSS), Total Ocular Symptom Score (TOSS), Total Rhinoconjunctivitis Symptom Score (TRSS), and Peak Nasal Inspiratory Flow (PNIF) were collected at baseline, every 30 min until 3 h, on an hourly basis for up to 12 h, and at 24 h following the onset of HDM exposure. Results: The modest and higher HDM target sessions respectively featured cumulative total particle counts of 156,784 and 266,694 particles (2.5–25 µm), Der f 1 concentrations of 2.67 ng/m3 and 3.80 ng/m3, and Der p 1 concentrations of 2.07 ng/m3 and 6.66 ng/m3. Allergic participants experienced an increase in symptoms, with modest target participants plateauing at 1.5 to 2 h and achieving a mean peak TNSS of 5.74 ± 0.65, mean peak TOSS of 2.47 ± 0.56, and mean peak TRSS of 9.16 ± 1.32. High HDM-target allergics reached a mean peak TNSS of 8.17 ± 0.71, mean peak TOSS of 4.46 ± 0.62, and mean peak TRSS of 14.08 ± 1.30 at 3 h. All allergic participants' symptoms decreased but remained higher than baseline after exiting the HDM-EEU. Sixteen participants (37.2%) were classified as Early Phase Responders (EPR), eleven (25.6%) as protracted EPR (pEPR), seven (16.3%) as Dual Phase Responders (DPR), and nine (20.9%) as Poor Responders (PR). Allergic participants experienced significant percent PNIF reductions at hours 2 and 3 compared to healthy controls. Non-allergics were asymptomatic during the study period. Conclusions: The HDM-EEU is an appropriate model to study HDM-induced AR as it can generate clinically relevant AR symptoms amongst HDM-allergic individuals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Allergic rhinitis (AR) is an inflammatory disease of the nasal mucosa impacting up to 25% of Canadians. The standard of care for AR includes a treatment plan that takes into account patient preferences, the severity of the disease, and most essentially involves a shared decision-making process between patient and provider. Body: Since their introduction in the 1940s, antihistamines (AHs) have been the most utilized class of medications for the treatment of AR. First-generation AHs are associated with adverse central nervous system (CNS) and anticholinergic side effects. On the market in the 1980s, newer generation AHs have improved safety and efficacy. Compared to antihistamines, intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) have significantly greater efficacy but longer onset of action. Intranasal AH and INCS combinations offer a single medication option that offers broader disease coverage and faster symptom control. However, cost and twice-per-day dosing remain a major limitation. Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is the only disease-modifying option and can be provided through subcutaneous (SCIT) or sublingual (SLIT) routes. While SCIT has been the definitive management option for many years, SLIT tablets (SLIT-T) have also been proven to be safe and efficacious. Conclusion: There is a range of available treatment options for AR that reflect the varying disease length and severity. For mild to moderate AR, newer generation AHs should be the first-line treatment, while INCS are mainstay treatments for moderate to severe AR. In patients who do not respond to INCS, a combination of intranasal AH/INCS (AZE/FP) should be considered, assuming that cost is not a limiting factor. While SCIT remains the option with the most available allergens that can be targeted, it has the potential for severe systemic adverse effects and requires weekly visits for administration during the first 4 to 6 months. SLIT-T is a newer approach that provides the ease of being self-administered and presents a reduced risk for systemic reactions. In any case, standard care for AR includes a treatment plan that takes into account disease severity and patient preferences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]