Molecular profiling in bee venom allergy: clinical and therapeutic characterization in a Portuguese cohort

Summary

Background. Bee venom allergy (BVA) can trigger local and systemic allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis. Recently, the molecular sensitization profile has gained importance in the reaction's stratification and venom immunotherapy (VIT). Methods. Retrospective analysis of patients with hypersensitivity to BVA, confirmed by specific sIgE to Apis mellifera ≥0.35 kU/L and/or positive skin tests to bee venom commercial extract, evaluated in specialized consultation. Demographic, clinical, and laboratory data (including molecular Api m 1, 4, and 10) were analyzed, looking for risk factors associated with the severity of the index reaction and reactions during VIT. Results. 93 patients were included (55.9% male; median age of 46 years), 57.3% with atopic comorbidities, and 23.4% with cardiovascular comorbidities. The median specific IgE to Apis mellifera was 6.7 kU/L (IQR 1.0-20.3) kU/L. Regarding the molecular profile, the median IgE to Api m 1 was 0.5 kU/L (57.5% positive out of all measurements); Api m 4 - 0.01 kU/L (11.9% positive), and Api m 10 - 0.3 kU/L (50.0% positive). No patient was monosensitized to Api m 4. The median age of the most severe sting reaction was 36 (IQR 26-48) years, with a median severity (Müeller scale) of 3 (IQR 2-3). Forty-seven patients (50.5%) underwent VIT, with 35.6% of reactions recorded. Allergic reactions during VIT were recorded in 35.6% of cases. The severity of the index reaction correlated positively with older ages (p=0.040; r=0.249), in contrast to monosensitization to Api m 1, which was an independent predictor of milder reactions (p=0.015). Sensitization to Api m 10 was associated with a higher likelihood of reactions during VIT (p=0.038) but potentially less systemic reactions at re-stings (p=0.097). Conclusions. Molecular sensitization profile appears to be relevant not only to the severity of index reactions but also during VIT. Studies of a large cohort of patients with molecular profiles are essential to validate these results and improve the clinical and therapeutic approach to BVA.

Home administration of biological treatment in severe asthma in real-life experience: impact on asthma control and quality of life

Summary

Introduction. Several biological agents for the treatment of severe asthma have been approved for self-administration on an outpatient basis in the last years. However, data on the impact of home administration in outcomes such as asthma control and quality of life in real-life settings are sparse. Being this knowledge crucial for clinical practice, this study aimed to assess asthma control and quality of life in patients who transitioned from day hospital administration of biological therapy to home administration. Methods. A single-center prospective analysis of 33 patients treated with biologics for severe asthma, who switched from hospital to home treatment was performed. Asthma Control Test (ACT), Control of Allergic Rhinitis and Asthma Test (CARAT), Asthma Life Quality (ALQ) and the number of exacerbations were assessed 3 months before and 3 and 6 months after of home-use. Results. ACT and CARAT did not show statistical differences comparing to the baseline values (21.8 ± 2.7 and 23.8 ± 5.5) within 3 months (22.1 ± 2.4, p = 0.609; 23.2 ± 5.3, p = 0.572) or 6 months (23.4 ± 0.9, p = 0.553; 23.7 ± 6.2, p = 0.149) of home administration. Also, ALQ score did not show meaningful variations between baseline (9.5 ± 3.2) and after 3 months (11.2 ± 4.4, p = 0.275) and 6 months (10.3 ± 3.8, p = 0.209) of home-use. Regarding asthma exacerbations, we did not record a significant difference comparing to the baseline values of 3 months/patient exacerbations (0.2 ± 0.4) and after 3 months (0.2 ± 0.5, p = 0.786) or 6 months (0.2 ± 0.4, p = 1.000) of change in modality treatment. There was no cases of anaphylaxis or other serious adverse effects in those patients treated at home. Conclusions. Transition of day hospital administration of biologic treatment for severe asthma to home administration did not lead to any deterioration of asthma control or quality of life. Our results emphasized the efficacy and safety of home administration of biologic treatment and provide support on changing the paradigm of the administration of biological treatment in severe asthma.