Search

Venom immunotherapy (VIT) is the only efficient therapy for the Hymenoptera insect venom allergy. Immunotherapy with bee venom is encumbered with a higher risk of systemic side effects and/or therapeutic failures. The objective of the study was to assess if specific profiles of molecular IgE (Immunoglobulin E) responses are associated with an increased risk of systemic side effects and/or the treatment’s inefficacy. The study group numbered 64 bee venom allergic patients (BVA) who received venom immunotherapy modo ultra-rush (VIT-UR), (f/m: 32/32, mean age 43.4 ± 17.2). In total, 54.84% of them manifested allergic reactions of grades I-III (acc. to Mueller’s scale), while 48.66% manifested reactions of grade IV. In all the patients, IgE against bee venom extract, rApi m 1 and tryptase (sBT) were assessed. In 46 patients, assessments of IgE against rApi m 2, 3, 5, 10 were also performed. BVA patients manifesting cardiovascular symptoms (SYS IV0) showed higher levels of both sIgE-rApi m 5 (p = 0.03) and tryptase (p = 0.07) than patients with SYS I–III. Systemic adverse events during VIT with bee venom were more frequent in the induction phase than in the maintenance phase: 15.22% vs. 8.7%. In BVA patients who experienced systemic adverse events during VIT, higher concentrations of sIgE-rApi m 5 (p < 0.05), rApi m 1 (p = 0.009), and sBT (p = 0.019) were demonstrated. We conclude that higher levels of sIgE against rApi m 1, rApi m 5, and tryptase many constitute a potential marker of the severity of allergic reactions and therapeutic complications that can occur during VIT with bee venom.

Background: Patients with heart failure (HF) are at high risk of unfavorable courses of COVID-19. The aim of this study was to evaluate characteristics and outcomes of COVID-19 patients with HF. Methods: Data of patients hospitalized in a tertiary hospital in Poland between March 2020 and May 2021 with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 were analyzed. The study population was divided into a HF group (patients with a history of HF) and a non-HF group. Results: Out of 2184 patients (65 ± 13 years old, 50% male), 12% had a history of HF. Patients from the HF group were older, more often males, had more comorbidities, more often dyspnea, pulmonary and peripheral congestion, inflammation, and end-organ damage biomarkers. HF patients had longer and more complicated hospital stay, with more frequent acute HF development as compared with non-HF. They had significantly higher mortality assessed in hospital (35% vs. 12%) at three (53% vs. 22%) and six months (72% vs. 47%). Of 76 (4%) patients who developed acute HF, 71% died during hospitalization, 79% at three, and 87% at six months. Conclusions: The history of HF identifies patients with COVID-19 who are at high risk of in-hospital complications and mortality up to six months of follow-up.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) shows high incidence of thromboembolic events in humans. In the present study, we aimed to evaluate if anticoagulation prior to COVID-19 infection may impact clinical profile, as well as mortality rate among patients hospitalized with COVID-19. The study was based on retrospective analysis of medical records of patients with laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. After propensity score matching (PSM), a group of 236 patients receiving any anticoagulant treatment prior to COVID-19 infection (AT group) was compared to 236 patients without previous anticoagulation (no AT group). In 180 days, the observation we noted comparable mortality rate in AT and no AT groups (38.5% vs. 41.1%, p = 0.51). Similarly, we did not observe any statistically significant differences in admission in the intensive care unit (14.1% vs. 9.6%, p = 0.20), intubation and mechanical ventilation (15.0% vs. 11.6%, p = 0.38), catecholamines usage (14.3% vs. 13.8%, p = 0.86), and bleeding rate (6.3% vs. 8.9%, p = 0.37) in both groups. Our results suggest that antithrombotic treatment prior to COVID-19 infection is unlikely to be protective for morbidity and mortality in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

The perception of acute heart failure (AHF) as a single entity is increasingly outdated, as distinct patient profiles can be discerned. Key heart failure (HF) studies have previously highlighted the difference in both the course and prognosis of de novo AHF and acute decompensated chronic HF (ADHF). Accordingly, distinct AHF profiles with differing underlying pathophysiologies of disease progression can be shown. We compared a range of selected biomarkers in order to better describe the profile of de novo AHF and ADHF, including the inter alia—serum lactate, bilirubin, matrix metallopeptidase 9 (MMP-9), follistatin, intercellular adhesion molecule 1 (ICAM-1), lipocalin and galectin-3. The study comprised 248 AHF patients (de novo = 104), who were followed up for one year. The biomarker data of the de novo AHF and ADHF profiles was then compared in order to link biomarkers to their prognosis. Our study demonstrated that, although there are similarities between each patient profile, key biomarker differences do exist—predominantly in terms of NTproBNP, serum lactate, bilirubin, ICAM-1, follistatin, ferritin and sTfR (soluble transferrin receptor). ADHF tended to have compromised organ function and higher risks of both one-year mortality and composite endpoint (one-year mortality or rehospitalization for heart failure) hazard ratios (HR) (95% CI): 3.4 (1.8–6.3) and 2.8 (1.6–4.6), respectively, both p &lt, 0.0001. Among the biomarkers of interest: sTfR HR (95% CI): 1.4 (1.04–1.8), NGAL(log) (neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin) HR (95% CI): 2.0 (1.3–3.1) and GDF-15(log) (growth/differentiation factor-15) HR (95% CI): 4.0 (1.2–13.0) significantly impacted the one-year survival, all p &lt, 0.05.

BACKGROUND Although renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) activation is believed to be the major driver of acute heart failure (AHF) episodes our understanding of its prevalence and clinical relevance in contemporary settings is incomplete. METHODS Serum renin and aldosterone were measured at day-1 and at discharge in patients (n = 211) that were hospitalized between 2016 and 2017 for AHF in a single cardiology center. The population was profiled based on upper limits of normal (ULN) of both biomarkers assessed at day-1 and linked with the clinical course and outcomes. RESULTS The study population constituted of three profiles: RAAS-/- (n = 121 [57%]); RAAS+/- (n = 60 [28%]); and RAAS+/+ (n = 30 [14%]). The RAAS+/+ profile had the lowest blood pressure and serum sodium at admission, day-2 and discharge compared to the other profiles (p

Individuals with a history of allergy are potentially at risk of suffering from adverse effects after COVID-19 vaccination. We sought to assess the tolerance towards the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine in allergic patients. To address this issue, we used a questionnaire conducted on-line in a group of medical professionals who were vaccinated with the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. A total of 1808 respondents, out of whom 1707 received two doses of the vaccine, returned the questionnaire. Local reactions after injection were more frequent in allergic individuals after both doses (swelling p = 0.0003). Systemic adverse events (AE-SYS) occurred more often after the second than the first dose in both groups (allergic persons: 77.29% vs. 41.06%), vomiting and arthralgia occurred more often in allergic subjects (p = 0.0009). AE-SYS in allergic individuals lasted longer than in non-allergic ones after the first (p = 0.01) and the second dose (p = 0.0009). Allergic reactions after vaccination were reported more frequently in allergic subjects: after the first dose (p = 0.00001) and after the second dose (p = 0.001). Rhinitis was the most frequent symptom observed more often in allergic patients. No severe allergic reactions occurred during the full cycle of vaccination. Although the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine is tolerated worse by allergic than non-allergic individuals, the occurring adverse symptoms are mild and do not preclude a successful completion of the vaccination cycle. The presence of symptoms suggestive of allergy does not constitute a condition of increased risk of developing clinically significant adverse events following Pfizer COVID-19 vaccination.

Background There is controversy whether taking beta-blockers or ACE inhibitors (ACEI) is a risk factor for more severe systemic insect sting reactions (SSR) and whether it increases the number or severity of adverse events (AE) during venom immunotherapy (VIT). Methods in this open, prospective, observational, multicenter trial, we recruited patients with a history of a SSR and indication for VIT. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate whether patients taking beta-blockers or ACEI show more systemic AE during VIT compared to patients without such treatment. Results in total, 1,425 patients were enrolled and VIT was performed in 1,342 patients. of all patients included, 388 (27.2%) took antihypertensive (AHT) drugs (10.4% took beta-blockers, 11.9% ACEI, 5.0% beta-blockers and ACEI). Only 5.6% of patients under AHT treatment experienced systemic AE during VIT as compared with 7.4% of patients without these drugs (OR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.43-1.22, p = 0.25). The severity of the initial sting reaction was not affected by the intake of beta-blockers or ACEI (OR: 1.14, 95% CI: 0.89-1.46, p = 0.29). in total, 210 (17.7%) patients were re-stung during VIT and 191 (91.0%) tolerated the sting without systemic symptoms. of the 19 patients with VIT treatment failure, 4 took beta-blockers, none an ACEI. Conclusions This trial provides robust evidence that taking beta-blockers or ACEI does neither increase the frequency of systemic AE during VIT nor aggravate SSR. Moreover, results suggest that these drugs do not impair effectiveness of VIT. (Funded by Medical University of Graz, Austria; Clinicaltrials.gov number, NCT04269629)., Medizinische Universitat Graz Funding Source: Medline

COVID-19, as a disease involving the endothelium of multiple organs, is characterized by high mortality rates among hospitalized patients. Patients with hematological malignancies are particularly at risk of an unfavorable course of COVID-19. The endothelial activation and stress index (EASIX) score has been used as a simple predictor of overall survival (OS) in specific groups of hematological cancer patients. EASIX, as a biomarker of endothelial dysfunction, might play a prognostic role in patients with COVID-19. Here, we performed a comprehensive retrospective analysis of the EASIX score in 523 hospitalized COVID-19 patients with or without coexisting hematological cancer. Hematological cancer COVID-19 patients had higher EASIX scores compared to the overall population with COVID-19. In hematological patients, EASIX was a strong predictor of the occurrence of sepsis during COVID-19. Our findings demonstrated EASIX as a strong predictor of intensive care unit admission, in-hospital mortality, the occurrence of acute renal failure and the need for hemodialysis, both in hematological and non-hematological COVID-19 patients. Patients with a high EASIX score on COVID-19 diagnosis had significantly inferior OS compared to patients with low EASIX. We showed for the first time that EASIX might serve as a simple, universal prognostic tool of OS in both hematological and non-hematological COVID-19 patients.

Objective To perform a genome-wide characterization of changes in microRNA (miRNA) expression during the course of venom immunotherapy (VIT). Methods miRNA was isolated from the whole-blood of 13 allergic patients and 14 controls, who experienced no allergic reaction upon stings by honeybees and wasps. We analyzed 2549 miRNAs from the whole blood of these patients prior to VIT and 12 months after the start of VIT. The results for differential expression obtained on a microarray platform were confirmed by quantitative real-time PCR. Out of the 13 patients, 8 had a negative allergic reaction with VIT, thus indicating that this approach was successful. Results By comparing time points before and 12 months after ultrarush VIT, correlation analysis and principal component analysis both indicated a limited effect of VIT on the overall miRNA expression pattern. Volcano plot analysis based on raw P values revealed few deregulated miRNAs, most of which were increasingly expressed after VIT as compared with before VIT. Based on the 50 most altered miRNAs, no clear clustering was observed before or after VIT. Conclusions Our results indicate an overall reduced effect of VIT on the miRNA expression pattern in whole blood.

Background Insect venom immunotherapy (VIT) is used to protect patients against Hymenoptera insects' venom allergy (HVA), which can result in severe systemic or even life-threatening conditions. Molecular mechanisms triggered by VIT remain largely unknown. Objective To compare genome-wide gene expression of patients with severe HVA prior to VIT and 12 months after. Methods Whole blood RNA samples were analyzed on an expression array. Results from differential expression obtained on a microarray platform were confirmed by quantitative real -time PCR (qRT-PCR). Subsequently we applied unsupervised clustering. Relative blood cell proportions and gene expression profiles were used as an input to csSAM to compute cell specific differential gene expression. Finally, transcription factor enrichment analysis was performed in MotifLab. Results & conclusions Comparison of genome-wide expression patterns for whole blood and qRT-PCR experiments revealed no significantly up and/or down regulated genes. This has been corroborated by unsupervised clustering. We found a significant upregulation of 26 genes in macrophages, of 15 genes in monocytes and 2 genes in T regulatory cells (Tregs). Analysis of the promoter sequences of these upregulated genes revealed a significant over-representation of binding motifs specific for kruppel-like factor 4, retinoic acid receptor gamma, and vitamin D receptor. Our results indicate that changes of gene expression invoked by VIT in peripheral blood may have a too small effect to be detected by conventional biostatistical approaches. When blood cell composition was taken into account we uncovered numerous changes of cell-specific gene expression. Given the regulatory implications we hypothesize that above-mentioned alterations may contribute to activation of anti-inflammatory signals in the innate branch of the immune system.

BACKGROUND The ultrarush protocol is an attractive approach in the buildup phase of venom immunotherapy (VIT-UR). However, the degree of risk of VIT-UR in children remains unknown. The objective of this study was to compare the safety of VIT-UR in children and adults. METHODS We performed a study based on prospectively gathered medical records of children and adults with hymenoptera venom allergy treated with VIT-UR in 3 allergy centers in Poland. RESULTS The study population comprised 134 children (mean [SD] age, 12.6 [3.7] years; males, 70.1%) and 207 adults (mean age, 42.4 [14.0] years; males, 47.8%). The number of children in the subgroups of bee venom (BV) allergy and wasp venom (WV) allergy were comparable, although sensitization to WV was more predominant in the adult group (70.1%). Skin reactivity to both venoms was more common in children than in adults (P < .001); however, children had higher concentrations of total IgE and specific IgE to BV (both P < .001). Systemic allergic reactions (VIT-SARs) occurred in 6.2% of the patients (3.7% in children and 7.7% in adults; nonsignificant). In adults, SARs occurred more frequently in patients treated with BV than WV extracts (21.4% vs 2.6%; P < .001). The same pattern was observed in children (7.2% vs 0%; P = .058). However, VIT-SARs to BV were less frequent in children than in adults (P = .034). Similarly, no significant relationship was noted between children and adults receiving WV VIT (2.6% vs 0%; nonsignificant). The severity of VIT-SAR did not differ between children and adults. CONCLUSIONS VIT-UR is safer in children. Age below 18 is not a risk factor for VIT-SARs.

Pharmacogenetics uses genetic information to help adjusting treatment for individual patients. It improves efficacy of therapy and enables avoiding side effects basing on genetic knowledge. Different asthmatic patients with similar disease severity, who are treated with the same medication, may respond to the therapy differently. After excluding non-genetic causes of such variability (like patient’s compliance, environmental and psychological factors), the most possible reason for the variability appears to be a different genetic structure. Changes in gene structure resulting in inter-individual dissimilarities, occur mostly as single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP). Different strategies play a role in searching and identifying SNPs, that influence pathogenesis of asthma and its response to treatment, (Kazani et al., 2010). One of the strategies involved is candidate gene studying, that focuses on finding genes responsible for therapy effectiveness as well as asthma development and its clinical severity (Moffatt & Cookson, 1997). Pharmacogenetics of asthma concentrates on genes coding: drug binding receptors, enzymes (important both in drug metabolism and metabolic cycles, eg. arachidonic acid cascade), chemokines, cytokines or growth factors relevant to asthma pathogenesis and pathophysiology. Genes need to be studied for known SNPs and new variants as well. When an SNP is found a thorough check for possible correlation between this polymorphism and disease phenotype or treatment response is needed. An expanded strategy for searching candidate genes involves screening of genes encoding proteins (enzymes) active in metabolic cycles important for drug response or key disease pathologies. In asthmatic patients this last method is often used to examine the leukotriene pathway in order to elucidate different patient reactions to leukotriene modifiers. Other options are genome-wide association studies that analyze genetic markers across the entire genome that may be connected with the phenotype. The identification of such a marker generated investigation of surrounding genes for SNPs related to the phenotype (Kazani et al., 2010). This procedure needs numerous and phenotypically well characterised populations and enables examination of the most frequent SNPs. There are some fields of medicine where pharmacogenetics is already in clinical use but in asthma treatment further investigation is still needed. This chapter reviews recent knowledge of pharmacogenetics of drugs commonly used in asthma treatment. We focus on bronchodilators, iCS (inhaled corticosteroids) and leukotriene modifiers.