Search

Abstract Background The revised Lublin classification offers a framework for categorizing multiple sclerosis (MS) according to the clinical course and imaging results. Diagnosis of secondary progressive MS (SPMS) is often delayed by a period of uncertainty. Several quantitative magnetic resonance imaging (qMRI) markers are associated with progressive disease states, but they are not usually available in clinical practice. Methods The MAGNON project enrolled 629 patients (early relapsing‐remitting MS (RRMS), n = 51; RRMS with suspected SPMS, n = 386; SPMS, n = 192) at 55 centers in Germany. Routine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans at baseline and after 12 months were analyzed using a centralized automatic processing pipeline to quantify lesions and normalized brain and thalamic volume. Clinical measures included relapse activity, disability, and MS phenotyping. Neurologists completed questionnaires before and after receiving the qMRI reports. Results According to the physicians’ reports, qMRI results changed their assessment of the patient in 31.8% (baseline scan) and 27.6% (follow‐up scan). For ∼50% of patients with RRMS with suspected SPMS, reports provided additional information that the patient was transitioning to SPMS. In >25% of all patients, this information influenced the physicians’ assessment of the patient's current phenotype. However, actual changes of treatment were reported only in a minority of these patients. Conclusions The MAGNON results suggest that standardized qMRI reports may be integrated into the routine clinical care of MS patients and support the application of the Lublin classification as well as treatment decisions. The highest impact was reported in patients with suspected SPMS, indicating a potential to reduce diagnostic uncertainty.

Immunoglobulin E (IgE) plays a critical role in the allergen-initiated inflammatory pathway and thus serves as a viable therapeutic target in allergic or IgE-mediated diseases such as asthma. Omalizumab, an anti-IgE biologic, has been approved in the United States (US, 2003) and in the European Union (EU, 2005) as an add-on therapy in patients with moderate-to-severe persistent asthma and severe allergic asthma (SAA) aged 6 years and older. The dose and frequency of omalizumab are adjusted based on the patient's body weight and baseline IgE levels, as recommended by its dosing tables. Currently, these dosing recommendations are limited to patients with baseline IgE levels of up to 1500 IU/mL in the European Union and 700 IU/mL in the United States. However, many patients with SAA have IgE levels >1500 IU/mL, highlighting an unmet need. This review presents the current evidence on the treatment benefits of omalizumab in patients with IgE levels >1500 IU/mL. The findings from the reviewed studies which included >3000 patients support the efficacy and effectiveness of omalizumab in reducing exacerbations, and improving asthma control, lung function, and quality of life in patients with severe asthma having IgE levels beyond the current dosing range. Omalizumab was well-tolerated in these patients, with no new safety signals. In addition, high IgE levels (>1500 IU/mL) are also reported in several comorbidities of asthma (allergic rhinitis, atopic dermatitis, allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis [ABPA], food allergy, and nasal polyposis) and omalizumab has demonstrated efficacy and safety in these indications. These data suggest that omalizumab may be considered for administration in SAA patients, with high IgE levels outside the current dosing tables. A detailed assessment of patients with high IgE levels is needed before deciding on the optimal treatment approach. A management algorithm for SAA patients with IgE >1500 IU/mL is proposed in this review and a suggestion to follow the Delphi consensus is advised.

Abstract Background This differential diagnosis of allergic vs non-allergic asthma is typically made on the basis of sensitization to allergens, such that absence of sensitization could result in a patient being managed as having non-allergic asthma. In Germany, the number of specific allergen tests is limited and non-standardized (across clinicians and laboratories), with the potential for false negative diagnoses. IDENTIFY aimed to gain data on sensitizations toward aeroallergens in patients with severe asthma who had tested negative to perennial aeroallergens in previous tests. Methods This was a single visit, non-randomized, non-interventional study conducted in 87 centers across Germany. The only inclusion criteria were that patients had to be adults (at least 18 years of age) with a diagnosis of severe asthma (receiving at least Global Initiative for Asthma Step IV therapy), and who had previously tested negative to perennial aeroallergens. Patients were then tested for sensitization to a panel of 35 perennial aeroallergens, with positive sensitization indicated by CAP ≥ 0.35 kU/L. Results Of 588 patients recruited, 454 had complete and valid data, and had previously tested negative to perennial aeroallergens. Overall, 43.6% of the analyzed patients tested positive for at least one of the included aeroallergens, with 18.7% testing positive for three or more, and 4.2% positive for more than ten. The five most common sensitizations were to Staphylococcus aureus enterotoxin B, Aspergillus fumigatus, Candida albicans, Dermatophagoides farinae, and Rhizopus nigricans, each of which tested positive in at least 9.7% of the population. Conclusions In this group of patients being managed as having non-allergic asthma (and who had all previously tested negative to perennial aeroallergens), a high proportion tested positive to a broad panel of aeroallergens. A diagnosis of allergic asthma therefore cannot be excluded purely on the basis of standard aeroallergen panels.