Hereditary angioedema (HAE) in children and adolescents : a consensus on therapeutic strategies

Hereditary angioedema due to C1 inhibitor (C1 esterase inhibitor) deficiency (types I and II HAE-C1-INH) is a rare disease that usually presents during childhood or adolescence with intermittent episodes of potentially life-threatening angioedema. Diagnosis as early as possible is important to avoid ineffective therapies and to properly treat swelling attacks. At a consensus meeting in June 2011, pediatricians and dermatologists from Germany, Austria, and Switzerland reviewed the currently available literature, including published international consensus recommendations for HAE therapy across all age groups. Published recommendations cannot be unconditionally adopted for pediatric patients in German-speaking countries given the current approval status of HAE drugs. This article provides an overview and discusses drugs available for HAE therapy, their approval status, and study results obtained in adult and pediatric patients. Recommendations for developing appropriate treatment strategies in the management of HAE in pediatric patients in German-speaking countries are provided.Conclusion Currently, plasma-derived C1 inhibitor concentrate is considered the best available option for the treatment of acute HAE-C1-INH attacks in pediatric patients in German-speaking countries, as well as for short-term and long-term prophylaxis

findings from the Icatibant Outcome Survey

Background Patients with hereditary angioedema (HAE) due to C1-inhibitor deficiency (C1-INH-HAE) experience recurrent attacks of cutaneous or submucosal edema that may be frequent and severe; prophylactic treatments can be prescribed to prevent attacks. However, despite the use of long-term prophylaxis (LTP), breakthrough attacks are known to occur. We used data from the Icatibant Outcome Survey (IOS) to evaluate the characteristics of breakthrough attacks and the effectiveness of icatibant as a treatment option. Methods Data on LTP use, attacks, and treatments were recorded. Attack characteristics, treatment characteristics, and outcomes (time to treatment, time to resolution, and duration of attack) were compared for attacks that occurred with versus without LTP. Results Data on 3228 icatibant-treated attacks from 448 patients with C1-INH-HAE were analyzed; 30.1% of attacks occurred while patients were using LTP. Attack rate, attack severity, and the distribution of attack sites were similar across all types of LTP used, and were comparable to the results found in patients who did not receive LTP. Attacks were successfully treated with icatibant; 82.5% of all breakthrough attacks were treated with a single icatibant injection without C1-INH rescue medication. Treatment outcomes were comparable for breakthrough attacks across all LTP types, and for attacks without LTP. Conclusions Patients who use LTP should be aware that breakthrough attacks can occur, and such attacks can be severe. Thus, patients with C1-INH-HAE using LTP should have emergency treatment readily available. Data from IOS show that icatibant is effective for the treatment of breakthrough attacks. Trial Registration NCT0103496

Clinical effectiveness of hymenoptera venom immunotherapy

Treatment failure during venom immunotherapy (VIT) may be associated with a variety of risk factors. Our aim was to evaluate the association of baseline serum tryptase concentration (BTC) and of other parameters with the frequency of VIT failure during the maintenance phase. In this observational prospective multicenter study, we followed 357 patients with established honey bee or vespid venom allergy after the maintenance dose of VIT had been reached. In all patients, VIT effectiveness was either verified by sting challenge (n = 154) or patient self-reporting of the outcome of a field sting (n = 203). Data were collected on BTC, age, gender, preventive use of anti-allergic drugs (oral antihistamines and/or corticosteroids) right after a field sting, venom dose, antihypertensive medication, type of venom, side effects during VIT, severity of index sting reaction preceding VIT, and duration of VIT. Relative rates were calculated with generalized additive models. 22 patients (6.2%) developed generalized symptoms during sting challenge or after a field sting. A strong association between the frequency of VIT failure and BTC could be excluded. Due to wide confidence bands, however, weaker effects (odds ratios <3) of BTC were still possible, and were also suggested by a selective analysis of patients who had a sting challenge. The most important factor associated with VIT failure was a honey bee venom allergy. Preventive use of anti-allergic drugs may be associated with a higher protection rate. It is unlikely that an elevated BTC has a strong negative effect on the rate of treatment failures. The magnitude of the latter, however, may depend on the method of effectiveness assessment. Failure rate is higher in patients suffering from bee venom allergy

Allergologische Diagnostik von Überempfindlichkeitsreaktionen auf Arzneimittel

Drug hypersensitivity reactions have to be tested to identify the culprit substance. The history includes the general information and specific data concerning used drugs, the classification and circumstances of the reaction. Skin tests are performed in all hypersensitivity reactions with allergic symptoms. Tests should be done between four weeks and six months after clearance of the symptoms by performing skin prick test, intradermal test, patch test or photopatch test. Validated tests for the detection of specific IgE antibodies in the serum are available for only few drugs, especially betalactam antibiotics. Other laboratory tests, e.g., the basophil activation test are done only in special cases. Provocation tests are indicated, if the culprit drug cannot be identified by the above mentioned tests. If possible, the evaluation of provocation tests should rely on objective parameters. The concluding assessment will be discussed with the patient and will be documented in an allergy pass

Allergologische Diagnostik von Überempfindlichkeitsreaktionen auf Arzneimittel

Überempfindlichkeitsreaktionen auf Arzneimittel müssen ausreichend geklärt werden mit dem Ziel, den Auslöser zu identifizieren. Die Anamnese umfasst neben der allgemeinen Anamnese auch Informationen zu angewandten Arzneimitteln, zur Klassifikation und zu den Umständen der Reaktion. Hauttests erfolgen bei allen Reaktionen mit Symptomen allergischer Überempfindlichkeiten mit geeigneten Testkonzentrationen, möglichst zwischen 4 Wochen und 6 Monate nach Abheilung der Reaktion durch Pricktest, Intrakutantest, Epikutantest oder Photopatchtest. Validierte Tests zum Nachweis spezifischer IgE-Antikörper im Serum sind nur für wenige Arzneistoffe (vor allem Betalaktamantibiotika) verfügbar; andere immunologische Labormethoden, z.B. der Basophilen-Aktivierungstest, werden nur in ausgewählten Fällen angewendet. Provokationstests sind indiziert, wenn der Auslöser durch bisherige Untersuchungen nicht mit Sicherheit identifiziert werden kann. Die Bewertung der Ergebnisse von Provokationstests sollte möglichst anhand objektiver Parameter erfolgen. Das Ergebnis der abschließenden Gesamtbeurteilung wird mit dem Patienten ausführlich besprochen und in einem Allergiepass niedergeleg

A Core Outcome Set for Efficacy of Acute Treatment of Hereditary Angioedema

Acute treatment; Delphi; Hereditary angioedemaTratamiento agudo; Delphi; Angioedema hereditarioTractament agut; Delphi; Angioedema hereditariBackground Clinical trials investigating drugs for the acute treatment of hereditary angioedema attacks have assessed many different outcomes. This heterogeneity limits the comparability of trial results and may lead to selective outcome reporting bias and a high burden on trial participants. Objective To achieve consensus on a core outcome set composed of key outcomes that ideally should be used in all clinical efficacy trials involving the acute treatment of hereditary angioedema attacks. Methods We conducted a Delphi consensus study involving all relevant parties: patients with hereditary angioedema, hereditary angioedema expert clinicians and clinical researchers, pharmaceutical companies, and regulatory bodies. Two Internet-based survey rounds were conducted. In round 1, panelists indicated the importance of individual outcomes used in clinical trials on a 9-point Likert scale. Based on these results, a core outcome set was developed and voted on by panelists in round 2. Results A total of 58 worldwide panelists completed both rounds. The first round demonstrated high importance scores and substantial agreement among the panelists. In the second round, a consensus of 90% or greater was achieved on a core outcome set consisting of five key outcomes: change in overall symptom severity at one predetermined time point between 15 minutes and 4 hours after treatment, time to end of progression of all symptoms, the need for rescue medication during the entire attack, impairment of daily activities, and treatment satisfaction. Conclusions This international study obtained a high level of consensus on a core outcome set for the acute treatment of hereditary angioedema attacks, consisting of five key outcomes

The Icatibant Outcome Survey: 10 years of experience with icatibant for patients with hereditary angioedema

In patients with hereditary angioedema (HAE), bradykinin causes swelling episodes by activating bradykinin B-2 receptors. Icatibant, a selective bradykinin B-2 receptor antagonist, is approved for on-demand treatment of HAE attacks. The Icatibant Outcome Survey (IOS; NCT01034969) is an ongoing observational registry initiated in 2009 to monitor the effectiveness/safety of icatibant in routine clinical practice. As of March 2019, 549 patients with HAE type 1 or 2 from the IOS registry had been treated of 5995 total attacks. This article reviews data published from IOS over time which have demonstrated that the effectiveness of icatibant in a real-world setting is comparable to efficacy in clinical trials; one dose is effective for the majority of attacks; early treatment (facilitated by self-administration) leads to faster resolution and shorter attack duration; effectiveness/safety of icatibant has been shown across a broad range of patient subgroups, including children/adolescents and patients with HAE with normal C1 inhibitor levels; and tolerability has been demonstrated in patients aged >= 65 years. Additionally, this review highlights how IOS data have provided valuable insights into patients' diagnostic journeys and treatment behaviours across individual countries. Such findings have helped to inform clinical strategies and guidelines to optimise HAE management and limit disease burden

Elderly versus younger patients with hereditary angioedema type I/II: patient characteristics and safety analysis from the Icatibant Outcome Survey.

BACKGROUND: Hereditary angioedema with C1 inhibitor deficiency (C1-INH-HAE) is characterized by recurrent swelling in subcutaneous or submucosal tissues. Symptoms often begin by age 5-11 years and worsen during puberty, but attacks can occur at any age and recur throughout life. Disease course in elderly patients is rarely reported. METHODS: The Icatibant Outcome Survey (IOS) is an observational study evaluating the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of icatibant. We conducted descriptive analyses in younger (age < 65 years) versus elderly patients (age ≥ 65 years). Here, we report patient characteristics and safety-related findings. RESULTS: As of February 2018, 872 patients with C1-INH-HAE type I/II were enrolled, of whom 100 (11.5%) were ≥ 65 years old. Significant differences between elderly versus younger patients, respectively, were noted for median age at symptom onset (17.0 vs 12.0 years), age at diagnosis (41.0 vs 19.4 years), and delay between symptom onset and diagnosis (23.9 vs 4.8 years) (P ≤ 0.0001 for all). Median age at diagnosis was significantly higher in elderly patients regardless of family history (P < 0.0001). Throughout the study, icatibant was used to treat 6798 attacks in 574 patients, with 63 elderly patients reporting 715 (10.5%) of the icatibant-treated attacks. No serious adverse events (SAEs) in elderly patients were judged to be possibly related to icatibant, whereas two younger patients reported three possibly related SAEs. Excluding off-label use and pregnancy (evaluated for regulatory purposes), the percentage of patients with at least one possibly/probably related AE was similar for elderly (2.0%) versus younger patients (2.7%). No deaths linked to icatibant treatment were identified. All related events in elderly patients were attributed to general disorders/administration site conditions, whereas related events in younger patients occurred across various system organ class designations. CONCLUSIONS: Elderly patients with C1-INH-HAE were significantly older at diagnosis and had greater delay in diagnosis than younger patients. Elderly patients contributed to approximately 10% of the icatibant-treated attacks. Our analysis found similar AE rates (overall and possibly/probably related) in icatibant-treated elderly versus younger patients, despite the fact that elderly patients had significantly more comorbidities and were receiving a greater number of concomitant medications. Our analysis did not identify any new or unexpected safety concerns

ARIA 2016:Care pathways implementing emerging technologies for predictive medicine in rhinitis and asthma across the life cycle

The Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) initiative commenced during a World Health Organization workshop in 1999. The initial goals were (1) to propose a new allergic rhinitis classification, (2) to promote the concept of multi-morbidity in asthma and rhinitis and (3) to develop guidelines with all stakeholders that could be used globally for all countries and populations. ARIA-disseminated and implemented in over 70 countries globally-is now focusing on the implementation of emerging technologies for individualized and predictive medicine. MASK [MACVIA (Contre les Maladies Chroniques pour un Vieillissement Actif)-ARIA Sentinel NetworK] uses mobile technology to develop care pathways for the management of rhinitis and asthma by a multi-disciplinary group and by patients themselves. An app (Android and iOS) is available in 20 countries and 15 languages. It uses a visual analogue scale to assess symptom control and work productivity as well as a clinical decision support system. It is associated with an inter-operable tablet for physicians and other health care professionals. The scaling up strategy uses the recommendations of the European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing. The aim of the novel ARIA approach is to provide an active and healthy life to rhinitis sufferers, whatever their age, sex or socio-economic status, in order to reduce health and social inequalities incurred by the disease