Background: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advises that patients with moderate to severe asthma belong to a high-risk group that is susceptible to severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, the association between asthma and COVID-19 has not been well-established. Objective: The primary objective was to determine the prevalence of asthma among patients with COVID-19 in a major US health system. We assessed the clinical characteristics and comorbidities in asthmatic and nonasthmatic patients with COVID-19. We also determined the risk of hospitalization associated with asthma and/or inhaled corticosteroid use. Methods: Medical records of patients with COVID-19 were searched by a computer algorithm (March 1 to April 15, 2020), and chart review was used to validate the diagnosis of asthma and medications prescribed for asthma. All patients had PCRconfirmed COVID-19. Demographic and clinical features were characterized. Regression models were used to assess the associations between asthma and corticosteroid use and the risk of COVID-19-related hospitalization. Results: Of 1526 patients identified with COVID-19, 220 (14%) were classified as having asthma. Asthma was not associated with an increased risk of hospitalization (relative risk, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.77-1.19) after adjusting for age, sex, and comorbidities. The ongoing use of inhaled corticosteroids did not increase the risk of hospitalization in a similar adjusted model (relative risk, 1.39; 95% CI, 0.90-2.15). Conclusions: Despite a substantial prevalence of asthma in our COVID-19 cohort, asthma was not associated with an increased risk of hospitalization. Similarly, the use of inhaled corticosteroids with or without systemic corticosteroids was not associated with COVID-19-related hospitalization. (J Allergy Clin Immunol 2020;146:307-14.)

Background: Acute exacerbations of chronic rhinosinusitis (AECRS) are associated with significant morbidity and decreased quality of life. There are sparse data assessing the real-world impact of biologics on AECRS. Objectives: We sought to determine the impact of type 2‐targeting biologics on the frequency of medication use for AECRS episodes. Methods: Antibiotic and/or systemic corticosteroid courses for AECRS were identified in a retrospective study from November 2015 to February 2020, at a single academic health system. The estimated yearly rates for antibiotic and corticosteroid courses were evaluated before and after initiation of type 2 biologics. Results: One-hundred and sixty-five patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) had received either omalizumab (n = 12), mepolizumab (n = 42), benralizumab (n = 44), dupilumab (n = 61), or reslizumab (n = 6). Seventy percent had CRS with nasal polyps, and 30% had CRS without nasal polyps. All the patients had asthma. When all the biologics were combined, the estimated yearly rate for antibiotics for AECRS decreased from 1.34 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12‐1.59) to 0.68 (95% CI, 0.52‐0.88) with biologic use (49% reduction, p < 0.001). Those with frequent AECRS (three or more courses of antibiotics in the 1 year before biologic use) had a larger degree of reduction, with an estimated yearly rate of 4.15 (95% CI, 3.79‐4.55) to 1.58 (95% CI, 1.06‐2.35) with biologic use (n = 27; 62% reduction; p < 0.001). Within the total cohort, the estimated yearly rate for systemic corticosteroids for AECRS decreased from 1.69 (95% CI, 1.42‐2.02) to 0.68 (95% CI, 0.53‐0.88) with biologic use (60% reduction; p < 0.001). Conclusion: Type 2‐targeting biologics reduced medication use for AECRS. This suggested that biologics may be a therapeutic option for patients with frequent AECRS.

No abstract

No abstract

Background: Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) is a type 2 inflammatory disease of the upper airways. AZD1981 is a selective antagonist of chemoattractant receptor-homologous molecule expressed on T helper type 2 and other type 2 cells, including innate lymphoid cells type 2, eosinophils, and basophils. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of AZD1981 in reducing nasal polyp size when added to intranasal corticosteroids in adult patients with CRSwNP. Methods: Eighty-one subjects (18-70 years of age) with CRSwNP were recruited and screened for trial eligibility from allergy and otolaryngology clinics from a single tertiary care site between June 2016 and August 2019. Eligible patients were randomized in a double-blind fashion to receive either AZD1981 (n = 22) or placebo (n = 21) orally three times a day for 12 weeks, added to intranasal corticosteroids. The primary endpoint was a change in nasal polyp score (NPS) at 12 weeks. Secondary endpoints included improvement in sinus computed tomography using Lund Mackay scoring, symptoms using visual analog scale, quality of life using Sino Nasal Outcome Test-22, and the Brief Smell Identification Test. Results: Forty-three patients met the inclusion criteria and were enrolled. At 12 weeks, there was no difference in NPS change in the AZD1981 arm (mean 0, standard error 0.34, n = 15) compared with placebo (mean 0.20, standard error 0.36, n = 17); mean difference −0.20 (95% confidence interval: −1.21, 0.81; p = .69). No significant differences were observed for Lund Mackay score, symptoms, quality of life, or smell test.AZD1981 was well tolerated except for one case of hypersensitivity reaction. Conclusion:In patients with CRSwNP, the addition of AZD1981 to intranasal corticosteroids did not change nasal polyp size, radiographic scores, symptoms, or diseasespecific quality of life.

Background: Acute allergic reactions to messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines are rare but may limit public health immunization efforts. Objectives: To characterize suspected allergic reactions to the first dose of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) mRNA vaccine and to assess the safety and utility of a two-step graded-dose protocol for the second dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine in patients with a history of low suspicion of anaphylaxis to their first dose. Methods: This was a retrospective evaluation of referrals to the allergy and immunology clinic for a presumed allergic reaction to the first dose of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna) between December 17, 2020, and February 28, 2021. Recommendations for the second dose and outcomes were evaluated by trained board-certified allergists. Results: Seventy-seven patients presented with a Pfizer-BioNTech reaction (56 [72.7%]) or with a Moderna reaction (21 [27.3%]). Most patients (69.7%) had symptom onset within 4 hours. Most commonly reported symptoms were cutaneous (51.9%), cardiovascular (48.1%), and respiratory (33.8%) symptoms. Recommendations included to proceed with the single dose (70.1%), two-step graded dose (19.5%), or deferral (10.4%). Twelve of 15 patients completed the second dose with a graded-dose protocol. Of these patients, five reported at least one or more similar symptoms as experienced with their first dose. Conclusion: Of the patients with presumed allergic reactions to their first dose of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine, most were able to safely receive the second dose. For those with a low suspicion of anaphylaxis, the two-step graded protocol with the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was well tolerated. A graded-dose protocol could be an effective strategy for second-dose vaccination in those who may otherwise defer the second dose.

Background: The diagnosis and management of chronic cough in primary care is challenging despite it being one of the most common chronic conditions. Objective: Clinical characterization of patients with new-onset chronic cough in the primary care setting. Methods: This was a retrospective study of adult patients (ages ≥ 18 years) with at least three visits with primary care providers (PCP) for new-onset cough, with at least 8 weeks between the first and third visits, within a tertiary-care center and affiliated clinics between January 1, 2010, and January 1, 2019 (N = 174). We calculated the frequency of primary care visits, diagnostic testing, specialist referrals, and prescribed medications up to 18 months after the third visit with a PCP for cough. Results: Of 174 patients who met the criteria of new-onset chronic cough, >50% had four or more primary care visits related to cough. Despite that, 91 (52.3%) did not receive a referral to a specialist, and 41 (23.5%) did not receive an order for a chest radiograph during the evaluation of the chronic cough. Antibiotics and systemic corticosteroids were prescribed to 106 (61%) and 63 (36%) of the patients, respectively, and 20% were prescribed opiates. No patients were prescribed central-neuromodulating agents, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors were discontinued in 48% of the patients who were taking them (12/25). Conclusion: We found considerable heterogeneity and discrepancies with clinical guideline recommendations in patients who presented with new chronic cough. There is a substantial unmet need to study chronic cough in the primary care setting to inform important stakeholders.

No abstract