THE MOST COMMONLY IDENTIFIED CAUSE OF PERIOPERATIVE HYPERSENSITIVITY REACTIONS

Introduction. Perioperative anaphylaxis is a clinical condition that range from mild symptoms to life-threatening reactions. There is a geographic difference in the most frequent identified cause of perioperative drug hypersensitivity reactions. However, data from national surveys are lacking. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cause of perioperative drug hypersensitivity reactions among patients with a history of perioperative anaphylaxis. Materials and Methods. A total number of 195 patients [68(34.87%) men; mean age 57 years; SD 40.8; age range 10-79] with a history of perioperative anaphylaxis were included. All patients were referred in a specialized allergy centre for evaluation within at least six weeks of hypersensitivity reaction during anesthesia. Allergy evaluation included a detailed medical history, review of perioperative medical records and skin testing for all drugs and products administered during the anesthesia. Skin testing was performed with nonirritating concentrations. If the skin prick test was negative, intradermal test was performed, when available. Results: A culprit drug, defined as a positive skin test, was identified in 115(58.97%) patients. A total number of 111 patients had allergy to one agent and 4 – to two. The most common agents indentified were neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs)– 68 positive skin tests in 61 (53.04%) patients. Reactions were as followed: pipecuronium -25(36.76%), rocuronium - 25(36.76%), suxamethonium - 13(19.12%), atracurium -5 (7.35%). Four patients had allergy to two NMBAs. Other identified agents were: fentanyl 10(8.7%), ketamine 13(11.3%), midazolam 11(9.57%), propofol 18 (16.65%), latex 2(1.74%). Conclusions: The leading causes of perioperative anaphylaxis in our study population were NMBAs. More data from multicenter national surveys should be collected in future

Determinants and Factors of Satisfaction with Sublingual Immunotherapy in Patients with Allergic Rhinitis

Introduction: Allergen specific immunotherapy provides effective treatment of allergic rhinitis. Despite its efficacy, it can be signifi­cantly compromised by a possible treatment dissatisfaction of patients.Aim: To explore determinants and factors of satisfaction with sublingual immunotherapy in patients with allergic rhinitis.Materials and methods: A total number of 191 patients with allergic rhinitis who completed a three-year course of sublingual im­munotherapy were included in the study. Of these, 76 had house dust mite (HDM) allergy - 42 men (55.26%) and 115 had grass pollen allergy - 63 men (54.78%) (mean age 27.3 years, SD: 6.14). The patients assessed their satisfaction using a visual analog scale. Health- Related Quality of Life was assessed by Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life questionnaire. A visual analog scale was used to determine severity of the allergic rhinitis.Results: The mean overall satisfaction, compared with that in previous therapy, increased significantly from 4.80 (SD 2.16) to 7.47 (SD 2.05) in the grass pollen allergy group and from 3.42 (SD 2.31) to 7.61 (SD 2.38) in the patients with HDM SLIT (p< 0.001). No relation between satisfaction and sex, type of immunotherapy extracts and duration of the disease was established. A strong correlation was found between satisfaction with treatment and quality of life (R=0.62) and severity of allergic rhinitis (R=0.69) after a three-year course.Conclusion: The results of this real-life study demonstrated that most patients with allergic rhinitis appeared to be satisfied with a three-year course of sublingual immunotherapy. The study provided evidence that reduction in severity of symptoms and improvement in quality of life could determine satisfaction with treatment

Current opinions for the management of asthma associated with ear, nose and throat comorbidities

Ear, nose and throat (ENT) comorbidities are common in patients with asthma and are frequently associated with poorer asthma outcomes. All these comorbidities are “treatable traits” in asthma. Identification and management of these disorders may spare medication usage and contribute to improved asthma control and quality of life, and a decrease in exacerbation rates. This review summarises recent data about the prevalence, clinical impact and treatment effects of ENT comorbidities in asthma including allergic rhinitis, chronic rhinosinusitis with and without nasal polyposis, aspirin-exacerbated respiratory disease, obstructive sleep apnoea and vocal cord dysfunction. Many of these comorbidities are possible to be managed by the pulmonologist, but the collaboration with the ENT specialist is essential for patients with chronic rhinosinusitis or vocal cord dysfunction. Further rigorous research is needed to study the efficacy of comorbidity treatment to improve asthma outcomes, in particular with the development of biotherapies in severe asthma that can also be beneficial in some ENT diseases

Progress in Occupational Asthma

Occupational asthma (OA) represents one of the major public health problems due to its high prevalence, important social and economic burden. The aim of this review is to summarize current data about clinical phenotypes, biomarkers, diagnosis and management of OA, a subtype of work-related asthma. Most studies have identified two phenotypes of OA. One is sensitizer-induced asthma, occuring after a latency period and caused by hypersensitivity to high- or low-molecular weight agents. The other is irritant-induced asthma, which can occur after one or more exposures to high concentrations of irritants without latency period. More than 400 agents causing OA have been identified and its list is growing fast. The best diagnostic approach for OA is a combination of clinical history and objective tests. An important tool is a specific inhalation challenge. Additional tests include assessments of bronchial hyperresponsiveness to methacholine/histamine in patients without airflow limitations, monitoring peak expiratory flow at- and off-work, sputum eosinophil count, exhaled nitric oxide measurement, skin prick tests with occupational allergens and serum specific IgE. Treatment of OA implies avoidance of exposure, pharmacotherapy and education. OA is a heterogeneous disease. Mechanisms of its different phenotypes, their diagnosis, role of new biomarkers and treatment require further investigation

Beliefs and preferences regarding biological treatments for severe asthma.

Background: Severe asthma is a serious condition with a significant burden on patients' morbidity, mortality, and quality of life. Some biological therapies targeting the IgE and interleukin-5 (IL5) mediated pathways are now available. Due to the lack of direct comparison studies, the choice of which medication to use varies. We aimed to explore the beliefs and practices in the use of biological therapies in severe asthma, hypothesizing that differences will occur depending on the prescribers' specialty and experience. Methods: We conducted an online survey composed of 35 questions in English. The survey was circulated via the INterasma Scientific Network (INESNET) platform as well as through social media. Responses from allergists and pulmonologists, both those with experience of prescribing omalizumab with (OMA/IL5) and without (OMA) experience with anti-IL5 drugs, were compared. Results: Two hundred eighty-five (285) valid questionnaires from 37 countries were analyzed. Seventy-on percent (71%) of respondents prescribed biologics instead of oral glucocorticoids and believed that their side effects are inferior to those of Prednisone 5 mg daily. Agreement with ATS/ERS guidelines for identifying severe asthma patients was less than 50%. Specifically, significant differences were found comparing responses between allergists and pulmonologists (Chi-square test, p < 0.05) and between OMA/IL5 and OMA groups (p < 0.05). Conclusions: Uncertainties and inconsistencies regarding the use of biological medications have been shown. The accuracy of prescribers to correctly identify asthma severity, according to guidelines criteria, is quite poor. Although a substantial majority of prescribers believe that biological drugs are safer than low dose long-term treatment with oral steroids, and that they must be used instead of oral steroids, every effort should be made to further increase awareness. Efficacy as disease modifiers, biomarkers for selecting responsive patients, timing for outcomes evaluation, and checks need to be addressed by further research. Practices and beliefs regarding the use of asthma biologics differ between the prescriber's specialty and experience; however, the latter seems more significant in determining beliefs and behavior. Tailored educational measures are needed to ensure research results are better integrated in daily practice

Beliefs and preferences regarding biological treatments for severe asthma

Background: Severe asthma is a serious condition with a significant burden on patients' morbidity, mortality, and quality of life. Some biological therapies targeting the IgE and interleukin-5 (IL5) mediated pathways are now available. Due to the lack of direct comparison studies, the choice of which medication to use varies. We aimed to explore the beliefs and practices in the use of biological therapies in severe asthma, hypothesizing that differences will occur depending on the prescribers' specialty and experience. Methods: We conducted an online survey composed of 35 questions in English. The survey was circulated via the INterasma Scientific Network (INESNET) platform as well as through social media. Responses from allergists and pulmonologists, both those with experience of prescribing omalizumab with (OMA/IL5) and without (OMA) experience with anti-IL5 drugs, were compared. Results: Two hundred eighty-five (285) valid questionnaires from 37 countries were analyzed. Seventy-on percent (71\%) of respondents prescribed biologics instead of oral glucocorticoids and believed that their side effects are inferior to those of Prednisone 5 mg daily. Agreement with ATS/ERS guidelines for identifying severe asthma patients was less than 50\%. Specifically, significant differences were found comparing responses between allergists and pulmonologists (Chi-square test, p < 0.05) and between OMA/IL5 and OMA groups (p < 0.05). Conclusions: Uncertainties and inconsistencies regarding the use of biological medications have been shown. The accuracy of prescribers to correctly identify asthma severity, according to guidelines criteria, is quite poor. Although a substantial majority of prescribers believe that biological drugs are safer than low dose long-term treatment with oral steroids, and that they must be used instead of oral steroids, every effort should be made to further increase awareness. Efficacy as disease modifiers, biomarkers for selecting responsive patients, timing for outcomes evaluation, and checks need to be addressed by further research. Practices and beliefs regarding the use of asthma biologics differ between the prescriber's specialty and experience; however, the latter seems more significant in determining beliefs and behavior. Tailored educational measures are needed to ensure research results are better integrated in daily practice