Search

Background: Eosinophils have a double-edged role in the human body, being essential in important physiologic functions but whose presence is conspicuous in a variety of diseases characterized by a T2 inflammation phenotype. Eosinophils are exquisitely sensitive to corticosteroids, and the latter have, until recently, represented the cornerstone of treatment of eosinophilic diseases. However, most patients remain dependent on oral corticosteroids, with a notable adverse effect burden and experience a chronic relapsing disease that leads to high morbidity and mortality. Treatment prospects have changed with the advent of biologic drugs that target the eosinotropic cytokine interleukin (IL) 5 or its receptor. The success of the latter drugs in severe eosinophilic asthma has paved the way for their use in other, rarer, eosinophilic lung diseases. Recently, mepolizumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody that works against IL-5, was approved for the add-on treatment of relapsing-remitting or refractory eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA) in patients ages ≥ 6 years. Benralizumab, a humanized antibody that binds to the α portion of the IL-5 receptor, is also being tested for its efficacy in EGPA in two clinical trials, after a growing number of case reports and case series supported its use as a steroid-sparing agent in the treatment of EGPA. Methods: In this review, we summarized the scientific literature evaluating the efficacy of benralizumab treatment in patients afflicted with rare primary eosinophilic lung diseases. Results: The literature we found, largely case reports, reported that the use of benralizumab in EGPA, chronic eosinophilic pneumonia (CEP) and allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis (ABPA) often led to a depletion of eosinophils, less exacerbations and a decreased systemic corticosteroid burden. No adverse effects were reported. Conclusion: Benralizumab has a prospective role in the treatment of rare eosinophilic lung diseases, which needs to be further elucidated in randomized controlled trials.

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) with monomeric carbamylated allergoid administered in accordance with the standard regimen has proven to be effective and safe. Achieving clinical benefit, however, requires a lengthy period of time so it is not very suitable for short-lasting allergies. We thus performed this study to compare an administration protocol starting in the coseasonal period (with a 4-day build-up phase) with a precoseasonal scheme to verify if the former regimen provides the same benefit in a shorter period of time. The prospective, randomized, drug therapy-controlled study was conducted in 33 rhinitic patients monosensitized to Olea with or without asthma. Ten patients were assigned to the coseasonal therapy with 5000 allergic units (AU)/week for 6 weeks, 11 to the precoseasonal therapy with 3000 AU/week for 10 weeks, and 12 to drug therapy. They were treated from April or May to June 2008. A visual analog scale (VAS) was performed at baseline and after treatment to assess the well being of the patients. Drug consumption was evaluated by means of a monthly diary. There was greater VAS improvement in both the SLIT groups versus the controls, but it was statistically significant only in the coseasonal group (p < 0.01). Furthermore, there was a reduction in the rescue medication only in the coseasonal SLIT (p < 0.05 versus drug therapy). One mild adverse event was observed. The allergoid SLIT was shown to be effective and safe in Olea allergy in particular when a coseasonal regimen was used.

Since the first case reported in 1927, latex allergy has attracted the attention of allergists including its capacity to cross-react with fruits. To evaluate the frequency of sensitivity to some fruit allergens shown to cross-react with latex, we evaluated 82 patients (43 men and 39 women, aged between 18 and 45 years) with latex allergy. All patients underwent skin tests with various fruit extracts that potentially cross-react with latex. Only patients with negative prick tests successively underwent prick-by-prick tests with fresh fruits. Thirty-nine of 82 patients (47.5%) were found to have positive skin tests. Prick tests with fruit extracts were positive in 28 patients (kiwi, 21 patients; banana, 17 patients; avocado, 8 patients; and papaya, 3 patients), and the prick-by-prick test had positive results in 11 patients (kiwi, 7 patients; banana, 4 patients; and avocado, 3 patients). In our experience patients with latex allergy are at a high risk of sensitization to some fruits and they often develop allergic reactions, even severe ones, after eating them; for this reason fruit sensitization should be taken into consideration when investigating patients allergic to natural rubber latex.