Pitlick, Mitchell M.

Objective To evaluate the effects of mepolizumab therapy on the blood transcriptome in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma (SEA) and to determine whether changes in gene expression predict responsiveness to mepolizumab treatment. Methods Fourteen consecutive patients diagnosed with SEA were prospectively enrolled. Each patient had sequential blood samples obtained pre-initiation and at 4, 8, and 12 weeks post-initiation of mepolizumab. Peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) were isolated from blood samples for bulk RNA sequencing. Paired differential expression (DE) gene analysis was performed comparing baseline gene expression versus all timepoints. Changes in gene expression were also compared between responders versus nonresponders to mepolizumab treatment. Finally, gene set enrichment analysis was evaluated across timepoints and its interaction with the response to mepolizumab treatment. Results Principal component analysis of all genes demonstrated a homogeneous distribution, which did not separate into distinct groups based on either timepoint or therapeutic response. At week 12, 149 genes had significant DE (FDR < 0.05) compared to baseline. When performing all-way timepoint comparisons, 74 genes (63 protein-coding) were found to be downregulated at weeks 4, 8 and 12 compared to baseline, but no differences were observed between post baseline timepoints. Twenty-eight genes (16 protein-coding) did change with progression of time and were associated with response to therapy, and 56 protein-coding genes distinguished responders and nonresponders. At week 12, nonresponders had a high enrichment of genes involved with signaling pathways, including cytokines, growth factors, cell differentiation markers, and protein kinases. Conclusion In this exploratory study, mepolizumab use was associated with limited global transcriptomic separation with some preliminary differential-expression and enrichment findings. No definitive mechanistic or predictive response signatures were identified due to the study limitations. Future studies, including larger cohorts followed for longer durations with interrogation of specific immune subsets, may offer additional insight into the pathophysiology of severe eosinophilic asthma and into predicting response to mepolizumab treatment.

Background:As the vaccination campaign in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues, concerns with regard to adverse reactions to the vaccine remain. Although immediate hypersensitivity reactions have received much attention, delayed systemic urticarial reactions after vaccination can occur.Objective:To describe the clinical presentation, vaccine excipient skin testing results, and outcomes of subsequent COVID-19 vaccination in patients who experienced delayed systemic urticarial reactions after messenger RNA (mRNA) COVID-19 vaccination.Methods:This was a retrospective case series of 12 patients referred to the Mayo Clinics in Rochester, Minnesota, and Jacksonville, Florida, between January 19, 2021, and April 30, 2021, for evaluation of delayed systemic urticarial reactions after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination. Demographics, medical and allergic history, reaction details, vaccine excipient skin testing results (when performed), and the outcome after subsequent vaccination were collected for each patient.Results:The mean age of the patients was 52 years, all were white, and 9 (75%) were women. Half of the patients had a history of drug allergy, and one had a history of chronic spontaneous urticaria. Seven patients reacted to the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine and five reacted to the Moderna vaccine. Seven patients developed symptoms between 8 and 24 hours after vaccination. Nine patients required antihistamines for treatment. The median time to symptom resolution was 4 days. Nine patients underwent allergist-directed COVID-19 vaccine excipient skin testing, all of which were negative. Ten patients chose to receive their next mRNA COVID-19 vaccine dose, and four patients experienced recurrent delayed urticaria.Conclusion:Delayed systemic urticarial reactions after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination were not life-threatening, could be treated with antihistamines, and were not predicted with vaccine excipient skin testing. They were not a contraindication to subsequent vaccination, although patients should be counseled with regard to the possibility of recurrence.

Background: It remains unclear if asthma is a risk factor associated with worse outcomes among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods: We performed a comprehensive database search for studies published from January 1, 2019, to October 2, 2020. We included studies that evaluated outcomes among patients with COVID-19 and underlying asthma. Outcomes of interest included the need for hospitalization, length of hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and death. The meta-analysis was conducted by using random-effects methodology. Results: A total of 389 studies were identified through data base searches. After abstract and full-text screening, 16 observational studies with 92,275 patients were included in the analysis. Of the 16 studies, 15 were retrospective and 1 was a prospective cohort study. The average age was 39.6 years, with 48% female patients. Six of the studies included pediatric patients, and one of these studies only evaluated pediatric patients. One study only evaluated pregnant patients. Among patients with COVID-19, the presence of asthma was not associated with any significant increase in risk of hospitalization (odds ratio [OR] 1.46 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.29-7.28]), length of hospitalization (1.59 days [‐0.55 to 3.74]), ICU admission (OR 1.65 [95% CI, 0.56-4.17]), or death (OR 0.73 [95% CI, 0.38-1.40]). The overall risk of bias of the included studies was high. Conclusion: Among the patients with COVID-19, asthma did not seem to significantly increase the risk of hospitalization, length of hospitalization, ICU admission, or death.

Background: As the global COVID-19 pandemic has unfolded, there has been much debate surrounding the optimal management of patients with asthma who are at risk of or contract COVID-19, whether asthma and steroids are risk factors for severe COVID-19, and how transmissible the virus is among children. Objective: The objective of this study is to provide allergists and other clinicians with pearls pertaining to the management of patients with asthma in the setting of the COVID-19 pandemic and to provide some information regarding the risk of transmission among the pediatric population. Methods: Utilizing the case of one of our own patients with asthma who developed COVID-19 as context, we review the recent literature discussing the risk of COVID-19 in patients with asthma, the management of asthma medications in the time of the pandemic, and the risk of viral transmission. Results: Despite initial reports that asthma was a risk factor for developing severe COVID-19, subsequent investigation has shown that this is likely not true. Additionally, the use of systemic or inhaled glucocorticoids does not appear to increase the risk of severe COVID-19, but there is no evidence guiding the use of biologic therapy. There is conflicting evidence regarding the ability of children to transmit the virus. Conclusion: We provide pearls that asthma does not appear to be associated with an increased risk of COVID-19 and continued use of inhaled corticosteroids appears to be safe. While there is no evidence guiding the use of biologic therapies, a recent position paper suggests that they should be continued unless a patient contracts COVID-19, at which point they should be held until clinical recovery occurs.

INTRODUCTION: We present the case of a woman who presented on multiple occasions with abdominal pain attributed to biliary colic that was eventually diagnosed as a hemorrhagic hepatic adenoma. We emphasize the importance of keeping a wide differential diagnosis for a common gastrointestinal complaint, the importance of medication review, and the benefit of patient-centered care. CASE DESCRIPTION/METHODS: A 37 year old female presented to the emergency department with right upper quadrant pain. She had pain for the past month that was more severe and constant in the past week. She had no fevers, chills, vomiting, or diarrhea. Her only medication was ethinyl estradiol for endometriosis. Her pain had been attributed to biliary colic at prior clinic appointments. She had right upper quadrant tenderness without peritoneal signs. A complete blood count and complete metabolic panel were unremarkable. A CT scan showed a 4.9 × 3.9 × 3.9 cm hepatic mass, with subsequent MRI demonstrating intrinsic T1 hyperintense signal consistent with a hepatic adenoma with recent hemorrhage. The patient declined to stop her estrogen without further endometriosis therapy, so she underwent simultaneous laparoscopic liver wedge resection and robotic hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oopherectomy. She now has some minor residual pain but is doing well. DISCUSSION: Hepatic adenomas are uncommon liver tumors classically associated with oral contraceptive (OCP) use. The annual incidence is 1 in 1,000,000 in non OCP users, but increases to 30-40 per 1,000,000 in those with long term OCP use. The risk increases with both increasing dose and duration of therapy. OCPs not only increase the incidence of hepatic adenomas, but they tend to be larger, more numerous, and more likely to bleed in patients who take OCPs. In this case, premature closure by multiple providers led to anchoring on the diagnosis of biliary colic. The association between her use of ethinyl estradiol and the possibility of hepatic adenoma was not recognized until her adenoma had begun to bleed, which could have resulted in a catastrophic outcome. This highlights the need to keep a broad differential and perform an adequate medication review for patients that present with this common gastrointestinal complaint. Additionally, prioritizing the patient’s preference to control her endometriosis pain led to consultation with the appropriate surgical teams that ultimately led to a positive outcome for the patient.

Necrotising autoimmune myopathy (NAM) is an immune-mediated myopathy that may be associated with statin use, malignancy or an autoimmune connective tissue disease, but it can also be idiopathic. Anti-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-coenzyme A reductase (HMGCR) myopathy is an extremely rare side effect of statin use, occurring in approximately 2–3 out of every 100 000 patients who use statins. Patients typically present with subacute proximal muscle weakness and creatine kinase levels >10 times the upper limit of normal. The diagnosis is suggested by muscle biopsy showing necrotic fibres with minimal inflammation along with positive anti-HMGCR antibodies. Treatment nearly always requires multiple immunosuppressive agents, the earlier use of which is associated with improved outcomes. Reports of statin-induced NAM leading to heart failure are limited. We present the case of a 69-year-old woman with statin-induced NAM who presented with acute systolic heart failure. Early initiation of high-dose corticosteroids and IVIG resulted in significant improvement in her symptoms.

Key Clinical MessageLymphoma often presents with extranodal manifestations. However, pancreatic involvement resulting in pancreatitis is rare. CD20‐negative variants of diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma are also rare and are more likely to present with extranodal involvement. Lymphoma should be considered in patients presenting with pancreatitis without traditional risk factors.