Search

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of tools to quantify the response to monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) holistically in severe uncontrolled asthma patients. OBJECTIVE: To develop a valid score to assist specialists in this clinical context. METHODS: The score was developed in four subsequent phases: (1) elaboration of the theoretical model of the construct intended to be measured (response to mAbs); (2) definition and selection of items and measurement instruments by Delphi survey; (3) weight assignment of the selected items by multicriteria decision analysis using the Potentially All Pairwise RanKings of All Possible Alternatives methodology using the 1000minds software; and (4) face validity assessment of the obtained score. RESULTS: Four core items, with different levels of response for each, were selected: severe exacerbations, oral corticosteroid use, symptoms (evaluated by Asthma Control Test), and bronchial obstruction (assessed by FEV1 percent predicted). Severe exacerbations and oral corticosteroid maintenance dose were weighted most heavily (38% each), followed by symptoms (13%) and FEV1 (11%). Higher scores in the weighted system indicate a better response and the range of responses runs from 0 (worsening) to 100 (best possible response). Face validity was high (intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.86). CONCLUSIONS: The FEV1, exacerbations, oral corticosteroids, symptoms score allows clinicians to quantify response in severe uncontrolled asthma patients who are being treated with mAbs.(c) 2021 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract 2021;9:2725-31)

Antihistamine drugs are one of the therapeutic classes most used at world level, at all ages and in multiple situations. Although in general they have a good safety profile, only the more recent drugs (second generation antihistamines) have been studied specifically with regard to the more important safety aspects. Given the variety of antihistamine drugs, they cannot all be considered equivalent in application to various special clinical situations, so that the documented clinical experience must be assessed in each case or, in the absence of such, the particular pharmacological characteristics of each molecule for the purpose of recommendation in these special situations. In general, there are few clinical studies published for groups of patients with kidney or liver failure, with concomitant multiple pathologies (such as cardiac pathology), in extremes of age (paediatrics or geriatrics) and in natural stages such as pregnancy or lactation, but these are normal situations and it is more and more frequent (among the elderly) for antihistamine drugs to be recommended. This review sets out the more relevant details compiled on the use of antihistamines in these special situations.

Recombinant and purified allergens are currently available for determining specific IgE targeted to different allergenic components. In this way it is possible to diagnose the sensitization profile of each individual patient. The microarray technique makes it possible to determine specific IgE against multiple allergens simultaneously in one same patient, with a minimum amount of serum, and even allows the determination of IgG and IgM against the same allergens in one same serum sample. Microarray procedures are being developed not only for the determination of antibodies but also for cell activation tests. In addition, microarray technology will help explain cross-reactions, and will facilitate the evaluation of subjects in which skin tests cannot be performed. These techniques will allow a great step forward in the development of immunotherapy specifically targeted to the sensitizations found in each individual patient, yielding especially hypoallergenic forms of great immunogenic capacity, and thus improving the safety and efficacy of immunotherapy. Lastly, microarrays will improve our understanding of the physiopathology of allergic diseases.

Anthranilic acid derivatives are a group of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs that include glafenine and fenamates. We report a woman who had immediate adverse reactions to glafenine and meclofenamate sodium. Skin prick and intradermal tests were performed with solutions of glafenine and meclofenamate in phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) and with the drugs bound to human serum albumin (HSA). Prick and intradermal tests with PBS solutions were negative for both drugs as were prick tests with HSA solutions. Intradermal tests with HSA-glafenine, however, were positive at 20 minutes, and at 6 and 24 hours. Intradermal tests with HSA-meclofenamate elicited a positive response at 6 and 24 hours. These tests were negative when performed in control subjects. A leukocyte histamine release test and a RAST assay were negative for both drugs. The patient was challenged following a double-blind placebo-controlled oral procedure and tolerated therapeutic doses of aspirin, indomethacin, ibuprofen, dipyrone, diclofenac, piroxicam, and acetaminophen. The oral challenge with glafenine and meclofenamate reproduced the reactions (eliciting doses: 50 mg and 15 mg, respectively), and the patient also reacted to 30 mg of mefenamic acid, an anthranilic acid derivative she had never previously received. This is an exceptional case of selective adverse reactions to glafenine and fenamates, anthranilic acid derivatives, in a patient tolerating aspirin and other cyclooxygenase inhibitors. Our study implicates an immunologic mechanism, and the existence of cross-reactivity between the drugs (or some active metabolite generated in vivo).