Induced sputum is an accurate method to study bronchial inflammation, allowing one to distinguish between rhinitis patients and mildly asthmatic patients. The fact that no relationship was detected between sputum inflammation and BHR suggests that other factors, such as airway remodeling, may be at least partly responsible for BHR in asthma.
Pru p 3 from peach leaves can act as a respiratory allergen and cause occupational rhinoconjunctivitis and asthma.
Carmine (E120), a natural red dye extracted from the dried females of the insect Dactylopius coccus var. Costa (cochineal), has been reported to cause hypersensitivity reactions. We report a case of occupational asthma and food allergy due to carmine in a worker not engaged in dye manufacturing. A 35-year-old nonatopic man, who had worked for 4 years in a spice warehouse, reported asthma and rhinoconjunctivitis for 5 months, related to carmine handling in his work. Two weeks before the visit, he reported one similar episode after the ingestion of a red-colored sweet containing carmine. Peak flow showed drops higher than 25% related to carmine exposure. Prick tests with the cochineal insect and carmine were positive, but negative to common aeroallergens, several mites, foods, and spices. The methacholine test was positive. Specific bronchial challenge test with a cochineal extract was positive with a dual pattern (20% and 24% fall in FEV1). Double-blind oral challenge with E120 was positive. The patient's sera contained specific IgE for various high-molecular-weight proteins from the cochineal extract, as shown by immunoblotting. Carmine proteins can induce IgE-mediated food allergy and occupational asthma in workers using products where its presence could be easily overlooked, as well as in dye manufacture workers.
Bronchial eosinophilic inflammation and bronchial hyperresponsiveness (BHR) are the main features of allergic asthma (AA), but they have also been demonstrated in allergic rhinitis (AR), suggesting a continuity between both diseases. In spite of not fully reproducing natural allergenic exposure, the allergen bronchial provocation test (A-BPT) has provided important knowledge of the pathophysiology of AA. Our aim was to verify the existence of a behavior of AA and AR airways different from the allergen bronchial challenge-induced airway eosinophilic inflammation and BHR changes. We studied a group of 31 mild and short-evolution AA and 15 AR patients, sensitized to Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus. The A-BPT was performed with a partially biologically standardized D. pteronyssinus extract, and known quantities of Der p 1 were inhaled. Peripheral blood (eosinophils and ECP) and induced sputum (percentage cell counts, ECP, albumin, tryptase, and interleukin [IL]-5) were analyzed, before and 24 h after A-BPT. Methacholine BHR, assessed before and 32 h after the A-BPT, was defined by M-PD20 values and, when possible, by maximal response plateau (MRP). The A-BPT was well tolerated by all the patients. AA presented a lower Der p 1 PD20 and a higher occurrence of late-phase responses (LPR). M-PD20 values decreased in AA, but not in AR, patients. MRP values increased in both groups. Eosinophils numbers and ECP levels increased in blood and sputum from both AA and AR, but only the absolute increment of sputum ECP levels was higher in AA than AR patients (P = 0.025). The A-BPT induced no change in sputum albumin, tryptase, or IL-5 values. We conclude as follows: 1) In spite of presenting a lower degree of bronchial sensitivity to allergen, AR patients responded to allergen inhalation with an eosinophilic inflammation enhancement very similar to that observed among AA. 2) MRP levels increased in both AA and AR patients after allergen challenge; however, M-PD20 values significantly changed only in the AA group, suggesting that the components of the airway response to methacholine were controlled by different mechanisms. 3) It is possible that the differences between AR and AA lie only in the quantitative bronchial response to allergen inhalation.
Currently, five biological drugs for uncontrolled severe asthma treatment are marketed. They all block type 2 inflammatory pathways, either by targeting IgE (omalizumab), the IL-5 pathway (mepolizumab, reslizumab, benralizumab), or the IL-4/13 pathway (dupilumab). Hypereosinophilia has been observed in between 4% and 25% of patients treated with dupilumab, being transient in most cases, but persistent cases of symptomatic hypereosinophilia consistent with eosinophil granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA), eosinophilic pneumonia, eosinophilic vasculitis or sudden worsening of asthma symptoms have been described. Cases of EGPA have been described with all biologics, including anti-IL-5, and with leukotriene receptors antagonists in publications or in the Eudravigilance database. In many cases of EGPA, it appears during systemic steroids tapering or after switching from an anti-IL-5 biologic to Dupilumab, suggesting that systemic steroids or the anti IL-5 were masking the vasculitis. This review aims to substantiate the plausible mechanisms of dupilumab-induced hypereosinophilia and review symptomatic hypereosinophilia cases associated with dupilumab therapy. Blockade of the IL-4/IL-13 pathway cause a reduction of eosinophil migration and blood accumulation by inhibiting eotaxin-3, VCAM-1, and TARC without simultaneously inhibiting eosinophilopoiesis in the bone marrow. When choosing the optimal biologic, it seems necessary to consider the presence of hypereosinophilia (>1,500/mL), where an anti-IL-5/IL-5R is preferable. Also, when changing from an anti-IL-5/5R to an anti-IL-4/13R. Close monitoring of blood eosinophils and clinical evolution seems justified in these situations. Nevertheless, dual therapy with anti-IL-5/5R and anti-IL4/IL-13R may be needed for optimal control since both IL-5, and IL-4/13 pathways can simultaneously contribute to airway inflammation.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.