Omalizumab provided a clinically important reduction in exacerbations and steroid requirement, and improved asthma symptoms and pulmonary function parameters in patients with asthma and ABPA who had previously shown an unsatisfactory response to Global Initiative for Asthma step 4 treatment.

No abstract

Background: Rapid drug desensitization (RDD) induces a temporary tolerance to biologics which induce hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs). Data are limited regarding the use of RDD outside the USA. Our purpose was to report our data on RDD to rituximab, infliximab, cetuximab, and trastuzumab. Methods: The study was conducted as a retrospective chart review of patients with symptoms of HSRs to biologics. HSRs were classified as grades I, II, and III, based on their severity. Skin-prick tests/intradermal tests (IDTs) were performed with the implicated biologics. The 12-step RDD protocol was used. Results: The study group comprised 11 women and 6 men (mean age: 47 ± 11.7 years). Fourteen patients experienced HSRs to rituximab; 3 had HSRs to cetuximab, infliximab, and trastuzumab, respectively. HSRs to cetuximab, infliximab, and trastuzumab occurred during the first infusion and were all grade III. Twelve of the 14 patients with rituximab hypersensitivity had a reaction during the first infusion; 10 patients had grade II reactions and 4 had grade III reactions. Respiratory symptoms were the most frequent presentation of HSR. Skin tests with rituximab were performed on 10 patients; only 3 resulted in positive IDTs (with 1:100 dilutions) and the other tests were negative as were those performed with the other biologics. Of 96 RDDs, 89 desensitizations were performed with rituximab, 5 with cetuximab, 1 with infliximab, and 1 with trastuzumab. There were 12 (13.5%) breakthrough reactions, all of which were associated with rituximab and were less severe than the initial reactions. Conclusion: RDD was found to be safe and effective in the largest case series of RDDs with biologics in our country, Turkey.

Background There is controversy whether taking β‐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 β‐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 β‐blockers, 11.9% ACEI, 5.0% β‐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 β‐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 β‐blockers, none an ACEI. Conclusions This trial provides robust evidence that taking β‐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).

No abstract

Background: Rapid drug desensitization (RDD) induces a temporary tolerance to chemotherapeutics that induce hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs). Purpose: Our objective is to report our experience with RDD to platins, taxanes, etoposide, doxorubicin, and irinotecan. Methods: The study was conducted as a retrospective chart review of patients with symptoms of HSRs to chemotherapeutics. HSRs were classified as grade I, II, or III, based on their severity. Skin prick/intradermal tests were performed with implicated chemotherapeutics. A 12-step RDD protocol was used. Results: The study consisted of 38 women and 3 men (mean age 53.3 ± 11.6 years). Patients had ovarian (n = 13, 31.8%), breast (n = 10, 24.4%), colon (n = 7, 17%), lung (n = 4, 9.8%), and other cancers (n = 7; endometrial sarcoma, testicular cancer, uterine cancer, ampulla of Vater tumor, choledochal tumor, peritonitis carcinomatosa, and Merkel cell carcinoma, n = 1, respectively). Twenty-two patients experienced HSRs to platins, 15 to taxanes, and 4 to other chemotherapeutics (doxorubicin, irinotecan, and etoposide). A total of 122 RDDs (47 to platins, 52 to taxanes, 23 to other chemotherapeutics) were performed. In 25 (61%) patients no reactions occurred during RDD, but breakthrough reactions developed in 16 patients (39%) with platins (n = 11), taxanes (n = 3), doxorubicin (n = 1), and irinotecan (n = 1). RDD procedures could not be completed in only 2 patients with grade II breakthrough reactions to carboplatin and oxaliplatin. Conclusion: In our experience, 98.3% of 122 RDDs were completed. We found that RDD was safe and effective in this the largest series of RDD with chemotherapeutics in our country.

Background and objectivesTo assess frequency and significance of enlarged nonpalpable supraclavicular lymph nodes with routine ultrasound (US) evaluation and US-guided fineneedle aspiration biopsy (FNAB) for the diagnosis and staging of patients with lung cancer.Materials and methods106 consecutive patients with lung cancer and nonpalpable supraclavicular lymph nodes were evaluated with cervical US for the presence of pathological lymph nodes. FNAB was performed in patients with nodes with short-axis > 5 mm, rounded shape and missing echogenic hilum.Results27 (25.5%) patients had enlarged supraclavicular lymph nodes on US. Fourteen patients (13.2%) had cytologically proven lymph node involvement. Supraclavicular lymph node metastasis was more frequent in patients with mediastinal invasion (p = 0.0001) and patients with enlarged lymph nodes on upper paratracheal stations on thorax CT (p = 0.0001). No relation was found between supraclavicular lymph node involvement and T stage (p = 0.27), distant metastasis (p = 0.50) or histological type (p = 0.80). Three patients were upstaged from IIIA to IIIB status. US-guided FNAB was the only diagnostic method in 2 patients.ConclusionUS-guided FNAB is a simple and safe procedure which can document N3 stage of disease in lung cancer patients. Thereby more invasive and expensive diagnostic procedures can be avoided in selected lung cancer patients.

Background: There is controversy whether taking β-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 β-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 β-blockers, 11.9% ACEI, 5.0% β-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 β-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 β-blockers, none an ACEI. Conclusions: This trial provides robust evidence that taking β-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)