Compromising between European and US allergen immunotherapy schools: Discussions from GUIMIT, the Mexican immunotherapy guidelines

Background: Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) has a longstanding history and still remains the only disease-changing treatment for allergic rhinitis and asthma. Over the years 2 different schools have developed their strategies: the United States (US) and the European. Allergen extracts available in these regions are adapted to local practice. In other parts of the world, extracts from both regions and local ones are commercialized, as in Mexico. Here, local experts developed a national AIT guideline (GUIMIT 2019) searching for compromises between both schools. Methods: Using ADAPTE methodology for transculturizing guidelines and AGREE-II for evaluating guideline quality, GUIMIT selected 3 high-quality Main Reference Guidelines (MRGs): the European Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (EAACI) guideines, the S2k guideline of various German-speaking medical societies (2014), and the US Practice Parameters on Allergen Immunotherapy 2011. We formulated clinical questions and based responses on the fused evidence available in the MRGs, combined with local possibilities, patient's preference, and costs. We came across several issues on which the MRGs disagreed. These are presented here along with arguments of GUIMIT members to resolve them. GUIMIT (for a complete English version, see Supplementary data) concluded the following: Results: Related to the diagnosis of IgE-mediated respiratory allergy, apart from skin prick testing complementary tests (challenges, in vitro testing and molecular such as species-specific allergens) might be useful in selected cases to inform AIT composition. AIT is indicated in allergic rhinitis and suggested in allergic asthma (once controlled) and IgE-mediated atopic dermatitis. Concerning the correct subcutaneous AIT dose for compounding vials according to the US school: dosing tables and formula are given; up to 4 non-related allergens can be mixed, refraining from mixing high with low protease extracts. When using European extracts: the manufacturer's indications should be followed; in multi-allergic patients 2 simultaneous injections can be given (100% consensus); mixing is discouraged. In Mexico only allergoid tablets are available; based on doses used in all sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) publications referenced in MRGs, GUIMIT suggests a probable effective dose related to subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) might be: 50–200% of the monthly SCIT dose given daily, maximum mixing 4 allergens. Also, a table with practical suggestions on non-evidence-existing issues, developed with a simplified Delphi method, is added. Finally, dissemination and implementation of guidelines is briefly discussed, explaining how we used online tools for this in Mexico. Conclusions: Countries where European and American AIT extracts are available should adjust AIT according to which school is followed

The Role of a Cachexia Grading System in Patients with Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Treated with Immunotherapy: Implications for Survival

Objetivo: La asociación entre la pérdida de peso inducida por cáncer (CIWL) y los malos resultados clínicos en pacientes tratados con inmunoterapia es poco conocida. Evaluamos el uso de un sistema de clasificación de caquexia en pacientes con cáncer de pulmón de células no pequeñas (CPCNP) tratados con OI para predecir los resultados clínicos. Materiales: Se incluyeron 300 pacientes con CPCNP que recibieron inmunoterapia durante cualquier línea de terapia. Todos los pacientes fueron clasificados de acuerdo con una escala de caquexia previamente validada, que toma en consideración el índice de masa corporal (IMC) y la pérdida de peso, estratificando a los pacientes en cinco categorías de riesgo (0 [pre-caquexia] - 4 [caquexia refractaria]). El criterio de valoración principal fue la supervivencia global (SG). Resultados: Noventa y un (30,3%) pacientes se clasificaron en la categoría de bajo riesgo, 176 (58,6%) se clasificaron en la categoría de riesgo intermedio y 33 (11%) en la categoría de alto riesgo. Los pacientes clasificados como de bajo riesgo tuvieron una SG significativamente más prolongada en comparación con los de riesgo intermedio o alto (22,4 meses, [IC del 95%: 16,6 – NR] frente a 17,1 [IC del 95%: 13,5–22,4] frente a 8,0 [3,9– 18,4]; p  <0,001). En el análisis multivariado, después de ajustar por edad, hemoglobina y ORR, el riesgo de muerte aumentó según la escala de riesgo de caquexia (Hazard ratio: 1,62 [1,22-2,16]; p  = 0,001). Conclusión: La caquexia se asocia de forma independiente con una peor SG en los pacientes con CPCNP que reciben inmunoterapia, destacando el papel de la evaluación nutricional.Objective: The association between cancer-induced weight-loss (CIWL) and poor clinical outcomes in patients treated with immunotherapy is scarcely understood. We evaluated the use of a cachexia-grading system in IO-treated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients in order to predict clinical outcomes. Materials: 300 patients with NSCLC, who received immunotherapy during any line of therapy, were included. All patients were graded according to a previously validated cachexia scale, which takes into consideration body mass index (BMI) and weight loss, stratifying patients into five risk categories (0 [pre-cachexia] − 4 [refractory cachexia]). Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Results: Ninety-one (30.3%) patients were classified in the low risk category, 176 (58.6%) were classified in the intermediate risk category and 33 (11%) were in the high risk category. Patients classified as low-risk had a significantly longer OS compared with those with intermediate or high risk (22.4 mo, [95%CI: 16.6–NR] vs. 17.1 [95%CI: 13.5–22.4] vs. 8.0 [3.9–18.4]; p < 0.001). In the multivariate analysis, after adjusting for age, hemoglobin and ORR, hazard of death increased as per the cachexia risk scale (Hazard ratio: 1.62 [1.22–2.16]; p = 0.001). Conclusion: Cachexia is independently associated with worse OS in NSCLC patients who receive immunotherapy, highlighting the role for nutritional assessment

Ticagrelor in patients with diabetes and stable coronary artery disease with a history of previous percutaneous coronary intervention (THEMIS-PCI) : a phase 3, placebo-controlled, randomised trial

Background: Patients with stable coronary artery disease and diabetes with previous percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), particularly those with previous stenting, are at high risk of ischaemic events. These patients are generally treated with aspirin. In this trial, we aimed to investigate if these patients would benefit from treatment with aspirin plus ticagrelor. Methods: The Effect of Ticagrelor on Health Outcomes in diabEtes Mellitus patients Intervention Study (THEMIS) was a phase 3 randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial, done in 1315 sites in 42 countries. Patients were eligible if 50 years or older, with type 2 diabetes, receiving anti-hyperglycaemic drugs for at least 6 months, with stable coronary artery disease, and one of three other mutually non-exclusive criteria: a history of previous PCI or of coronary artery bypass grafting, or documentation of angiographic stenosis of 50% or more in at least one coronary artery. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either ticagrelor or placebo, by use of an interactive voice-response or web-response system. The THEMIS-PCI trial comprised a prespecified subgroup of patients with previous PCI. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (measured in the intention-to-treat population). Findings: Between Feb 17, 2014, and May 24, 2016, 11 154 patients (58% of the overall THEMIS trial) with a history of previous PCI were enrolled in the THEMIS-PCI trial. Median follow-up was 3·3 years (IQR 2·8–3·8). In the previous PCI group, fewer patients receiving ticagrelor had a primary efficacy outcome event than in the placebo group (404 [7·3%] of 5558 vs 480 [8·6%] of 5596; HR 0·85 [95% CI 0·74–0·97], p=0·013). The same effect was not observed in patients without PCI (p=0·76, p interaction=0·16). The proportion of patients with cardiovascular death was similar in both treatment groups (174 [3·1%] with ticagrelor vs 183 (3·3%) with placebo; HR 0·96 [95% CI 0·78–1·18], p=0·68), as well as all-cause death (282 [5·1%] vs 323 [5·8%]; 0·88 [0·75–1·03], p=0·11). TIMI major bleeding occurred in 111 (2·0%) of 5536 patients receiving ticagrelor and 62 (1·1%) of 5564 patients receiving placebo (HR 2·03 [95% CI 1·48–2·76], p<0·0001), and fatal bleeding in 6 (0·1%) of 5536 patients with ticagrelor and 6 (0·1%) of 5564 with placebo (1·13 [0·36–3·50], p=0·83). Intracranial haemorrhage occurred in 33 (0·6%) and 31 (0·6%) patients (1·21 [0·74–1·97], p=0·45). Ticagrelor improved net clinical benefit: 519/5558 (9·3%) versus 617/5596 (11·0%), HR=0·85, 95% CI 0·75–0·95, p=0·005, in contrast to patients without PCI where it did not, p interaction=0·012. Benefit was present irrespective of time from most recent PCI. Interpretation: In patients with diabetes, stable coronary artery disease, and previous PCI, ticagrelor added to aspirin reduced cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke, although with increased major bleeding. In that large, easily identified population, ticagrelor provided a favourable net clinical benefit (more than in patients without history of PCI). This effect shows that long-term therapy with ticagrelor in addition to aspirin should be considered in patients with diabetes and a history of PCI who have tolerated antiplatelet therapy, have high ischaemic risk, and low bleeding risk