The 6-minute pegboard and ring test (6PBRT) is a test of upper-extremity functional capacity designed for and validated in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The aim of this study was to evalua...

National data on asthma characteristics and the factors associated with uncontrolled asthma seem to be necessary for every country. For this purpose, we developed the Turkish Adult Asthma Registry ...

Background: Hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are a significant clinical issue. Several classifications have been proposed to categorize these reactions, including the current European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology/ European Network for Drug Allergy (EAACI/ENDA) classification. This study aimed to evaluate the applicability of this classification in a real-world clinical setting. Methods: We conducted a national multicenter study involving patients from nine hospitals in four major urban centers in Turkey. All patients had a suggestive clinical history of hypersen-sitivity reactions to NSAIDs. Researchers collected data using a structured form and classified reactions based on the EAACI/ENDA classification. Oral provocation tests with several NSAIDs were performed using a single-blind challenge per EAACI/ENDA guidelines. Results: Our retrospective study included 966 adult patients with a history of hypersensitivity to NSAIDs. The most common triggers were Acetylsalicylic Acid (ASA), paracetamol, and metamizole. The most prevalent acute NSAID hypersensitivity group was NSAID-induced urticaria/angioedema (NIUA) (34.3%). However, 17.3% of patients did not fit neatly into the current EAACI/ENDA classification. Notably, patients with underlying asthma or allergic rhinoconjunctivitis exhibited unusual reactions, such as urticaria and/or angioedema induced by multiple chemical groups of NSAIDs, blended mixed reactions, and isolated periorbital angioedema in response to multiple chemical groups of NSAIDs. Conclusions: While the EAACI/ENDA classification system stratifies NSAID-induced hypersensitivity reactions into five distinct endotypes or phenotypes, it may not fully capture the diversity of these reactions. Our findings suggest a need for further research to refine this classification system and better accommodate patients with atypical presentations.

Introduction: Cytokines are key mediators in immunological and inflammatory conditions, including chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU). Objectives: To investigate Th1, Th2, and Th17 cytokine profiles in CSU and to evaluate the possible effect of omalizumab treatment. Methods: Patients who were followed up for CSU, as well as healthy volunteers, were included in the study. To assess urticaria activity, the 7-day-Urticaria Activity Score (UAS-7), the Urticaria Control Test (UCT), and the Chronic Urticaria Quality of Life Questionnaire (CU-QoL) were filled. Serum levels of IL-6, IL-17, IL-31, eotaxin, RANTES, TNF-α, and TSLP were analyzed by ELISA and compared in CSU and control groups. The patients were analyzed in two groups as the omalizumab group and the non-omalizumab group based on their treatment status. Results: Total IgE, ESR, CRP, RANTES, and TNF-a were significantly different in the overall comparison of the three groups: CSU-receiving omalizumab, CSU-not receiving omalizumab, and control groups (P <0.01, 0.015, <0.01, <0.01 and <0.01 respectively). Total IgE, CRP, RANTES, and TNF-α values were similar in those who received and did not receive omalizumab, yet these biomarkers were significantly higher in both groups than in the control group (P < 0.05). Statistical significance in ESR was observed only between the CSU-receiving omalizumab group and the control group (P = 0.01). Within the CSU patients, there was a slight but significant correlation between UCT and TNF-α (P = 0.008, r = 0.32) and IL-17 (P = 0.06, r = 0.33) levels. Conclusions: The investigated cytokine profile in CSU patients may differ from healthy controls, particularly with the higher levels of RANTES and TNF-α, and omalizumab treatment does not seem to affect that profile in CSU patients.

We aimed to report outcomes of pregnant patients with asthma under omalizumab treatment and their infants in our county. Patients with asthma who received omalizumab for at least 6 months and at least one dose during their pregnancy were retrospectively evaluated using a questionnaire regarding their disease and therapy, the health of their infants. 20 pregnant patients and their 23 infant?s data were analyzed. The mean delivery age was 31.8±7.4 years. They received omalizumab for 28.9±21.8 months. Eight (36.4%) patients showed exacerbation of the disease during pregnancy. Forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) and asthma control test (ACT) scores at the starting time of omalizumab administration, first month of the pregnancy, and after delivery were 71±18%, 83.4±10.5%, and 80.5±13% (FEV1), and 11.9±4.9, 20.2±2.6, and 20.4±2.2 (ACT), respectively. One patient gave birth to twin infants, two patients to two infants each in different years, and 17 to one infant each. Three (13%) infants had low birth weight and five (21.7%) were born prematurely. No congenital anomalies were detected. Seven (30.4%) infants presented atopic diseases during their life. Omalizumab treatment during pregnancy seems to be safe for both patients and their infants.

Asthma,long-term management,reliever,controller,severe asthma