Search

Short-acting β2-agonist (SABA) over-reliance is associated with poor asthma outcomes. As part of the SABA Use IN Asthma (SABINA) III study, we assessed SABA prescriptions and clinical outcomes in patients from six Latin American countries. In this cross-sectional study, data on disease characteristics/asthma treatments were collected using electronic case report forms. Patients (aged ≥12 years) were classified by investigator-defined asthma severity (guided by the 2017 Global Initiative for Asthma) and practice type (primary/specialist care). Multivariable regression models analyzed the associations between SABA prescriptions and clinical outcomes. Data from 1096 patients (mean age, 52.0 years) were analyzed. Most patients were female (70%), had moderate-to-severe asthma (79.4%), and were treated by specialists (87.6%). Asthma was partly controlled/uncontrolled in 61.5% of patients; 47.4% experienced ≥1 severe exacerbation in the previous 12 months. Overall, 39.8% of patients were prescribed ≥3 SABA canisters in the preceding 12 months (considered over-prescription). SABA canisters were purchased over the counter (OTC) by 17.2% of patients, of whom 38.8% purchased ≥3 canisters in the 12 months prior. Of patients who purchased SABA OTC, 73.5% were prescribed ≥3 SABA canisters. Higher SABA prescriptions (vs. 1 − 2 canisters) were associated with an increased incidence rate of severe exacerbations (ranging from 1.31 to 3.08) and lower odds ratios of having at least partly controlled asthma (ranging from 0.63 to 0.15). SABA over-prescription was common in Latin America, highlighting the need for urgent collaboration between healthcare providers and policymakers to align clinical practices with the latest evidence-based recommendations to address this public health concern.

Background A double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III study (200622) showed that mepolizumab reduces disease flares for patients with uncontrolled FIP1-like-1-platelet-derived growth factor receptor α–negative hypereosinophilic syndrome (HES) and two or more flares in the previous year. Objective To further characterize the safety, clinical benefit, and pharmacodynamics of mepolizumab. Methods Eligible patients from both treatment arms of the double-blind study could enter an open-label extension study (205203; NCT03306043) to receive 4-weekly mepolizumab (300 mg subcutaneously) plus background therapy for 20 weeks. Primary end points were safety-based; other end points included flare rates and changes from baseline in mean daily oral corticosteroid (OCS) dose and blood eosinophil count. Results Of 104 patients who completed the double-blind study, 98% (previous placebo, n = 52; previous mepolizumab, n = 50) enrolled in the open-label extension. Overall, 66 of patients reported adverse events (AEs) (65%), 15 reported treatment-related AEs (15%), and nine reported serious AEs (9%). No events were fatal. The annualized flare rate (95% confidence interval) in the previous placebo and previous mepolizumab groups was 0.37 (0.16-0.86) and 0.14 (0.04-0.49) events/y, respectively. Of 72 patients receiving OCS during weeks 0 to 4, 20 (28%; previous placebo, n = 14; previous mepolizumab, n = 6) achieved 50% or greater reductions in mean daily dose during weeks 16 to 20. At week 20, blood eosinophil count was reduced by 89% in patients previously receiving placebo and remained reduced for those previously receiving mepolizumab. Conclusions Extended mepolizumab treatment was associated with a positive benefit–risk profile. Continued control of disease flares and blood eosinophil counts, plus reductions in OCS use, were observed with mepolizumab in patients with FIP1-like-1-platelet-derived growth factor receptor α–negative HES.

Tang, Mimi/0000-0002-3839-5293; Romano, Antonino/0000-0001-9742-9898; Zuberbier, Torsten/0000-0002-1466-8875; Thong, Bernard/0000-0002-6338-8482; EBO, Didier/0000-0003-0672-7529; Scala, Enrico/0000-0002-9391-9168; Monge Ortega, Olga Patricia/0000-0002-6195-417X WOS:000523267300003 PubMed: 32128023 Currently, testing for immunoglobulin E (IgE) sensitization is the cornerstone of diagnostic evaluation in suspected allergic conditions. This review provides a thorough and updated critical appraisal of the most frequently used diagnostic tests, both in vivo and in vitro. It discusses skin tests, challenges, and serological and cellular in vitro tests, and provides an overview of indications, advantages and disadvantages of each in conditions such as respiratory, food, venom, drug, and occupational allergy. Skin prick testing remains the first line approach in most instances; the added value of serum specific IgE to whole allergen extracts or components, as well as the role of basophil activation tests, is evaluated. Unproven, non-validated, diagnostic tests are also discussed. Throughout the review, the reader must bear in mind the relevance of differentiating between sensitization and allergy; the latter entails not only allergic sensitization, but also clinically relevant symptoms triggered by the culprit allergen. WAO Board of Directors The authors wish to thank the allergy societies from the membership of the World Allergy Organization who provided critical review of the draft and the WAO Board of Directors for supporting this work.

The publisher regrets we have been made aware of the below errors: 1) In Table 15, row NOVEOS chemiluminescent assay is written “utilizes 40 μL (0.04 ml) of sample per result”. The correct value would be “4 μL (0.004 ml)" of sample per result.2) In Table 16, is written “NOVEOS menu has 79 available allergens, consisting of 69 extracts and 10 molecular allergens”. It should say “NOVEOS menu continues to increase and it has 152 total allergens with 108 extracts and 44 components".3) In Table 15, row “Euroimmun”, column “Patient's serum”, is written “1000 ml”. The correct value would be “0.1 ml (-0.4 ml)”.The publisher would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.

Background Allergen immunotherapy (IT) is widely used to treat patients with allergic diseases, proven effective and recommended by national and international guidelines. Its efficacy and safety depend on the correct indication, use of relevant allergens and good quality extracts, as well as prescription and supervision by a trained professional. Our aims were to evaluate the frequency of use of IT in Brazil and to investigate whether this practice meets recommendations of the Brazilian Association of Allergy and Immunology (ASBAI) and Brazilian Medical Association.