Background: There is a lack of information about the course of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in patients with severe asthma who were treated with biologics. Some reports indicated that treatment with benralizumab, dupilumab, and omalizumab in patients with severe asthma was not associated with significant adverse effects during COVID-19. Methods: Asthma itself or the biologic agents used to treat asthma can have a positive effect on the course of COVID-19. There seem not to be any cases that specifically reported the use of mepolizumab in a patient who was infected with COVID. Results: We reported of a 55-year-old woman with a diagnosis of severe asthma for; 3 years and who was being treated with mepolizumab, with no evidence of loss of asthma control, at the time of contracting COVID-19 and who had been followed up in the allergy clinic. In addition, there are no data on mepolizumab therapy in patients with elevated liver enzyme levels. Conclusion: With this case, we also reported that no adverse effects were observed during mepolizumab treatment in a patient with elevated liver enzyme levels.

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues, case reports have been published where patients with severe asthma using biological agents survived with a mild course of illness and encouraged the continuation of biological therapies in patients with severe asthma. However, contrary to previous information, a more severe course of COVID-19 has recently been reported in severe asthmatics using biological therapy compared to the general population. To evaluate the COVID-19 rate and disease severity in severe asthmatics using biological agents. A retrospective study was conducted in patients with severe asthma treated with biological agents. Data concerning whether the subjects had contracted COVID-19 and the severity of the disease were evaluated. Eihgty-four severe asthmatics using biological agents (omalizumab or mepolizumab) aged 48.3 +/- 10.6 years (mean +/- standard deviation) with female/male ratio: 53 (63.1%)/31 (36.9%) were included in the study. Among participants 13 (15.5%) had contracted COVID-19. The course of COVID-19 was mild in five (38.5%) and moderate in eight patients (61.5%), while none of the patients had a severe course of COVID-19. Mechanical ventilation or intensive care follow-up was not required in any of the six patients (46.2%) who were treated as inpatients. All participants survived COVID-19 in full recovery and no deaths occurred in the cases. A higher rate of COVID-19 was found in patients with severe asthma using biologics compared to those reported in previous reports. However, all patients with COVID-19 have a mild to moderate disease course.

Introduction: Osimertinib is an approved therapy for patients with a Thr790met (T790M) mutation diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that progresses during epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR-TKI) therapy. However, in 7–13% of patients, drug-related side effects lead to discontinuation of osimertinib treatment. In such cases, osimertinib desensitization is a treatment option that can be considered. Case report: A 59-year-old female patient, who was followed up with the diagnosis of stage 4 NSCLC, was consulted to the allergy clinic because of urticaria. The patient developed urticaria plaques 20 h after the third dose of osimertinib tablet. Management & outcome: With the diagnosis of osimertinib-induced urticaria, desensitization was planned for the patient. Treatment was started with a dose of 0.1 mg/day osimertinib. The procedure was completed in approximately 50 days, and a dose of 80 mg/day was reached with antihistamine suppression. Discussion: Here, a successful osimertinib desensitization in a patient with a history of osimertinib-related type 1 allergic reaction is reported. Osimertinib desensitization is a treatment option that should be considered in cases where treatment has to be ceased due to drug-related side effects.

The aim of this study was to elucidate the incidence of local, large local and systemic reactions after subcutaneus immunotherapy (SCIT) injections in our clinic and to determine the characteristic features of these adverse reactions. A total of 6000 SCIT injections administered to 163 patients between January 2011 and December 2021 were retrospectively evaluated. The study population consisted of patients with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis who underwent SCIT due to pollen, house dust mite or cat allergy, or patients who underwent SCIT due to venom allergy. Demographic characteristics of the patients, diagnoses, allergen sensitivities, immunotherapy protocol applied, adverse reactions, and the characteristics of these reactions were recorded. Totally, 163 patients with a mean age of 36.8 ± 12.7 years were enrolled in this research. Sex distribution was as follows: 55.2% (n= 90) were females. During the study, 218 allergic reactions were detected in 83 patients. The incidence of adverse reactions per injection was 3.6%. The probability of developing an adverse reaction in a patient during the entire subcutaneous immunotherapy was 53.9%. Of the adverse reactions that developed, 94 (43.1%, n= 47) were observed locally while 56 (25.7%, n= 40) were large local reactions, and 68 (31.2%, n= 30) were systemic. Incidence of adverse reactions per injection were 1.5%, 0.9%, and 1.1% for local reaction, large local reaction, and systemic reaction, respectively. The results of this analysis elaborated that subcutaneous immunotherapy is a safe and tolerable treatment modality. However, before initiating treatment, the benefits and risks should be evaluated. The risk of systemic reactions is quite low, but fatal anaphylaxis can occur, so physicians need to be aware of the potential risks.

Aim: To present the characteristics of drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) among taxane recipients with non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC), and to describe the results of rapid drug desensitization (RDD). Methods: A retrospective cross-sectional study included 45 patients who were treated with taxane for NSCLC and were found to be hypersensitive to taxane. All patients were administered the standard 3-bag, 12-step RDD protocol following the development of DHR. RDD success was evaluated separately for each cycle, and successful RDD was defined as the completion of the cycle with application of 12 steps of the desensitization protocol and the absence of early and/or late reactions afterwards. Results: Among 45 patients hypersensitive to taxane 43 (95.6%) successfully received taxane cycles with desensitization. Failed RDD occurred in only 2 (4.4%) patients. The total number of desensitization cycles was 183, of which 181 (98.9%) were successful. The mean age of patients with successful desensitization was 59.42 ± 10.48 years and 37 (86.0%) of them were male. Conclusion: RDD is a reliable procedure that enables effective administration and completion of first-line taxane treatments in taxane-sensitive patients.