A retrospective analysis omalizumab treatment patterns in patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria: a real-world study in Belgium

Background

Chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) is characterized by the repeated occurrence of persistent hives and/or angioedema for ≥6 weeks, without specific external stimuli. H₁‐antihistamines have long been the standard of care of CSU, but many patients remain uncontrolled even at 4× the approved dose. Add‐on therapy with omalizumab has proven effective in clinical trials, but little is known about omalizumab treatment in Belgium.

Objective

To collect real‐world clinical data on omalizumab treatment in adults with CSU in Belgium.

Methods

This was an observational, retrospective chart review of adults with CSU, who initiated omalizumab treatment between August 2014 and December 2016 (maximum 28 months follow‐up).

Results

In total, 235 patients were included (median time from symptom onset to diagnosis, 5.4 months; median time from diagnosis to commencing omalizumab, 6.7 months). Treatments used before/after commencing omalizumab did not always adhere to guidelines; many patients (26.4%/11.1%) received first‐generation H₁‐antihistamines, while 20.4% used omalizumab monotherapy after initiating treatment. The mean interval between omalizumab administrations was 4.8 (SD 1.7) weeks; 67.8% of patients had ≥1 interval prolongation and/or shortening. Mean baseline 7‐day Urticaria Activity Score (UAS7) was 32.0 (SD 6.05); this improved to 12.6 (SD 11.2) after 1 month of omalizumab. About 67.2% of patients reached UAS7 ≤ 6 (well controlled) during the study. A total of 87 patients stopped omalizumab and never restarted before the end of the observation period; the most prevalent reason was remission of symptoms (49.4% of patients), followed by lack of effect (12.6%), lost to follow‐up (6.9%) and adverse events (3.4%). Headache was the most common adverse event (n = 8/82). No anaphylaxis was reported.

Conclusions

This study revealed that patients initiated on omalizumab in Belgium had severe CSU at baseline, and showed substantial improvements after 1 month of treatment. Greater adherence to the prescription of guideline‐recommended medications is needed for the treatment of CSU.

Skin lesions, differential diagnosis and practical approach to potential survivors of torture

As the international refugee crisis has reached new proportions (BMJ, 355, 2016 and i5412), survivors of torture increasingly present in treating physicians with an array of acute or chronic skin lesions. Physicians should be aware of common presentations and likely differential diagnoses in order to avoid mislabelling or under-recognizing torture. Survivors of torture also frequently suffer from psychological sequelae, such as post-traumatic stress disorder, and appropriate referrals are essential in order to improve recovery trajectory. Skin sequelae are the most common physical findings of torture. Not all skin lesions seen in tortured survivors are due to perpetrator inflicted injuries, and many dermatological conditions can mimic lesions typical of torture, as can scars as a result of folk remedies or cultural practices specific to geographical regions. Medical documentation of torture includes injury and lesion description. While forensic dermatology and other forensic specialties use an injury description taxonomy, and the standard dermatologic taxonomy uses an anatomic description, they are complementary sciences for lesions inflicted by torture. This results in an opportunity for learning across disciplines in order to improve evidence documentation for survivors of torture. This article describes features of common skin lesions consistent with torture, including their clinical appearances, differential diagnoses, patterns of injury and appropriate clinical descriptions.

Cheilitis granulomatosa and Crohn's disease : a case report

In this case report we describe the evolution of Cheilitis granulomatosa (GC) in a young patient with Crohn's disease during treatment with anti-TNF-alfa therapy.

Adrenaline in anaphylaxis treatment and self-administration: experience from an inner city emergency department

BACKGROUND

Anaphylaxis is a life-threatening emergency of which reliable epidemiological data are lacking. This study aimed to analyze how quickly patients presenting with anaphylaxis were treated in emergency and whether treatment followed the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) guidelines.

METHODS

Patient data were collected between April 2009 and April 2013. Emergency doctors completed a questionnaire for adult patients presenting at the emergency department (ED) of the St. Pierre hospital in Brussels with anaphylaxis. Inclusion criteria were based on the Sampson criteria of anaphylaxis. Data were analyzed using a Microsoft Excel database.

RESULTS

About 0.04% (100/230878) of all emergency visits in adults presented with anaphylaxis. 64% of patients received their first medical help later than 30 min after symptom onset. 67% of patients received adrenaline, 85% oral antihistamines, and 89% received IV glucocorticosteroids. 46/100 patients were discharged directly from the ED, of which 87% received further medical prescriptions for self-administration: 67% corticosteroids, 83% antihistamines, and 9% intramuscular adrenaline. 74% were instructed to consult an allergologist for adequate diagnosis. 54/100 patients were hospitalized.

CONCLUSION

The majority of patients were treated according to the EAACI guidelines for management of anaphylaxis, but only a minority received the recommended adrenaline auto-injector for self-administration at discharge. Because the majority of patients received medical help later than 30 min after symptom onset, adrenaline auto-injector prescription is a necessity. The low rate of doctors prescribing adrenaline auto-injectors in the ED setting underlines the need to train doctors of various backgrounds in prevention and treatment of anaphylaxis and the close collaboration with allergologists.

Drug allergy passport and other documentation for patients with drug hypersensitivity - An ENDA/EAACI Drug Allergy Interest Group Position Paper

The strongest and best-documented risk factor for drug hypersensitivity (DH) is the history of a previous reaction. Accidental exposures to drugs may lead to severe or even fatal reactions in sensitized patients. Preventable prescription errors are common. They are often due to inadequate medical history or poor risk assessment of recurrence of drug reaction. Proper documentation is essential information for the doctor to make sound therapeutic decision. The European Network on Drug Allergy and Drug Allergy Interest Group of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology have formed a task force and developed a drug allergy passport as well as general guidelines of drug allergy documentation. A drug allergy passport, a drug allergy alert card, a certificate, and a discharge letter after medical evaluation are adequate means to document DH in a patient. They are to be handed to the patient who is advised to carry the documentation at all times especially when away from home. A drug allergy passport should at least contain information on the culprit drug(s) including international nonproprietary name, clinical manifestations including severity, diagnostic measures, potential cross-reactivity, alternative drugs to prescribe, and where more detailed information can be obtained from the issuer. It should be given to patients only after full allergy workup. In the future, electronic prescription systems with alert functions will become more common and should include the same information as in paper-based documentation.

Anaphylaxis in an urban Belgian emergency department: epidemiology and aetiology

OBJECTIVES

Anaphylaxis is an emergency condition of which reliable epidemiological data are lacking. This study focusses on epidemiology and aetiology of anaphylactic reactions in an urban Belgian emergency department (ED).

METHODS

Patient data were collected from 04/2009 to 04/2013.During this period, emergency doctors completed a questionnaire for adult patients (>15 years) with anaphylaxis presenting at the ED. Inclusion criteria were based on the Sampson criteria of anaphylaxis. Data were analysed using a Microsoft Excel database.

RESULTS

Anaphylaxis accounted for 0.04% of all emergency visits in this 4-year period. In both women and men, dyspnoea and urticaria were noted most frequently. 51.7% of cases were possibly elicited by foods, 46.1% by drugs and 3.4% by hymenoptera stings. Women more often reported allergic diseases in their personal history. 55.7% of patients, who had a history of allergy, reported a suspected food-related allergy, 24.6% a drug-related allergy and 8.2% a hymenoptera venom-related allergy. In 76.5% of patients who reported a history of food allergy, food was the presumed elicitor of anaphylaxis. For patients with history of drug allergy, 88.2% had a presumed drug anaphylaxis at the time of presentation at the ED. 81% of cases presented with grade 4 or 5 anaphylaxis. With increasing age, the severity of anaphylaxis increased. Higher tryptase levels correlated with a higher grade of anaphylaxis.

CONCLUSION

In this Belgian urban population, foods and drugs were by far the most common suspected elicitors of anaphylaxis. Personal history of allergic diseases was present in more than half of the cases.

Vemurafenib-associated Dupuytren- and Ledderhose palmoplantar fibromatosis in metastatic melanoma patients

BACKGROUND

The BRAF-inhibitor vemurafenib, used in patients with metastatic melanoma, induces multiple cutaneous side-effects.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this work was to evaluate the development of palmoplantar fibromatosis in a population of patients treated with the BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib.

METHODS

Between April 2011 and February 2013, we initiated a treatment with vemurafenib in 53 patients with an unresectable stage IIIC or stage IV melanoma. The patients were followed-up on a regular base to monitor possible side-effects.

RESULTS

A plantar or palmar fibromatosis was observed in five of 53 patients treated with vemurafenib. In four of these patients other risk factors for the development of palmoplantar fibromatosis were absent.

CONCLUSION

The BRAF-inhibitor vemurafenib might induce palmoplantar fibromatosis.

Effects of a structured educational intervention on knowledge and emergency management in patients at risk for anaphylaxis

BACKGROUND

Structured educational programmes for patients at risk for anaphylaxis have not yet been established. Patients and caregivers often lack adequate skills in managing the disease.

METHODS

To investigate effects of structured patient education intervention on knowledge, emergency management skills and psychological parameters in patients with previous episodes of anaphylaxis and caregivers of affected children 95 caregivers (11 male, 84 female, mean age 37 years) of affected children and 98 patients (32 male, 66 female, mean age 47.5 years) were randomly assigned to an intervention (IG) or control group (CG) in a multicentre randomized controlled trial. The IG received two 3-h schooling modules of group education; the CG received standard auto-injector training only. Knowledge of anaphylaxis and emergency management competence in a validated training anaphylaxis situation as main outcome measures as well as secondary psychological parameters were assessed at baseline and 3 months after intervention.

RESULTS

In comparison with controls, the intervention led to significant improvement of knowledge from baseline to 3-month follow-up (caregivers: IG 3.2/13.2 improvement/baseline vs CG 0.7/12.6; P < 0.001; patients: IG 3.9/10.8 vs 1.3/12.6; P < 0.001). Moreover, emergency management competence was increased after intervention as compared to controls (caregivers: IG 8.6/11.2 vs CG 1.2/10.8; P < 0.001; patients: 7.1/11.0 vs 1.1/11.1; P < 0.001). Intervention showed significant reduction of caregiver anxiety (-1.9/8.4 vs -0.7/7.5; P < 0.05). There were no significant changes in the depression scores.

CONCLUSION

Structured patient education programmes may be beneficial in the management of anaphylaxis by increasing patients' empowerment to prevent and treat the disease.

Skin test concentrations for systemically administered drugs -- an ENDA/EAACI Drug Allergy Interest Group position paper

Skin tests are of paramount importance for the evaluation of drug hypersensitivity reactions. Drug skin tests are often not carried out because of lack of concise information on specific test concentrations. The diagnosis of drug allergy is often based on history alone, which is an unreliable indicator of true hypersensitivity.To promote and standardize reproducible skin testing with safe and nonirritant drug concentrations in the clinical practice, the European Network and European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) Interest Group on Drug Allergy has performed a literature search on skin test drug concentration in MEDLINE and EMBASE, reviewed and evaluated the literature in five languages using the GRADE system for quality of evidence and strength of recommendation. Where the literature is poor, we have taken into consideration the collective experience of the group.We recommend drug concentration for skin testing aiming to achieve a specificity of at least 95%. It has been possible to recommend specific drug concentration for betalactam antibiotics, perioperative drugs, heparins, platinum salts and radiocontrast media. For many other drugs, there is insufficient evidence to recommend appropriate drug concentration. There is urgent need for multicentre studies designed to establish and validate drug skin test concentration using standard protocols. For most drugs, sensitivity of skin testing is higher in immediate hypersensitivity compared to nonimmediate hypersensitivity.

Urticaria: attempts at classification

Among the many attempts to classify urticaria, 2 categories have been accepted worldwide, namely according to time course into acute (shorter than 6 weeks) and chronic urticaria (longer than 6 weeks) and a classification according to etiopathophysiology. A special subgroup is the physical urticarias where wheals are elicited via specific physical (mechanical, temperature, radiation) stimuli. In many forms of chronic urticaria, psychosomatic influences play a role. Despite great progress in modern immunology and allergology, chronic urticaria still remains a challenge for doctors and patients.