Dataset Information

Clinical manifestations of hereditary angioedema and a systematic review of treatment options.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

This study systematically reviews the existing literature on the management of hereditary angioedema (HAE) and provides an update on the clinical presentation and specific therapies.

Methods

A literature search of PubMed and Embase databases was conducted from start of the database to February 2021. Inclusion criteria included relevant systematic reviews, randomized control clinical trials, prospective and retrospective cohort studies, and outcomes research published in English and available in full-text. Out of 310 candidate articles, a total of 55 articles were included in our study.

Results

The most common genetic form of HAE in up to 85% of cases is caused by low levels of C1 esterase inhibitor (C1-INH) protein, leading to a bradykinin-mediated increase in vascular permeability. During an attack of HAE, abortive treatment with C1-INH replacement is most commonly described, however, icatibant, ecallantide, or fresh frozen plasma are also used. Long-term prophylaxis in the form of C1-INH replacement (subcutaneous or intravenous), monoclonal antibodies targeting plasma kallikrein, attenuated androgens, and transexemic acid should be considered for those who suffer from frequent, severe attacks.

Conclusion

Progressively distal involvement of the upper airway, especially the larynx, has been shown to pose an increased risk of asphyxiation and death in the acute presentation of HAE. Evaluation by an otolaryngologist is often sought during the emergent clinical management of HAE; therefore, it is prudent that the consulting physician is well-versed in the prompt recognition, triage of patients, and appropriate treatment modalities.

Level of evidence

1A.

SUBMITTER: Rosi-Schumacher M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8223449 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Treatment regimens for pemphigoid gestationis (PG) are non-standardized, with most evidence derived from individual case reports or small series. Objectives: To systematically review current literature on treatments and clinical outcomes of PG and to establish recommendations on its therapeutic management. Methods: An a priori protocol was designed based on PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched for English-language articles detailing PG treatments and clinical outcomes, published between 1970 and March 2020. Results: In total, 109 articles including 140 PG patients were analyzed. No randomized controlled trials or robust observational studies detailing PG treatment were found. Systemic corticosteroids ± topical corticosteroids and/or antihistamines were the most frequently prescribed treatment modality (n = 74/137; 54%). Complete remission was achieved by 114/136 (83.8%) patients. Sixty-four patients (45.7%) were given more than one treatment modality due to side effects or ineffectiveness. Leaving aside topical corticosteroids as monotherapy ± antihistamines in patients with mild disease, systemic corticosteroids ± topical corticosteroids and/or antihistamines led to complete remission in the highest proportion of patients (83%), while steroid-sparing treatments ± topical corticosteroids and/or antihistamines were associated with the lowest proportion of flares (55.5%). Limitations: The review has been drafted based on a limited number of single case reports and small case series. Underreporting/underdiagnosis of patients with mild-to-moderate PG, partial/absent follow-up, absence of precise description of neonatal outcomes and lack of validated objective scores for measuring disease severity are other limitations of our study. Our systematic review was affected by publication bias. Conclusion: Systemic corticosteroids are the most frequently used treatment for PG. Whilst most patients achieve complete remission, many of them have refractory/persistent disease requiring multiple lines of therapy. Therefore, we provided an algorithm for PG treatment integrating the results of this systematic review with current knowledge available for bullous pemphigoid. High-quality studies will further help assess the effectiveness of different treatment options for PG.

Project description:BackgroundHereditary angioedema (HAE) is characterized by unpredictable attacks of debilitating subcutaneous and mucosal edema. Gastrointestinal attacks are painful, of sudden onset and often mistaken for acute abdomen leading to unnecessary surgery. The purpose of this study was to analyze symptom presentation of gastrointestinal angioedema in pediatric and adult HAE patients.MethodsInformation collected during the clinical development of ecallantide for treatment of acute HAE attacks included affected anatomic location, accompanying symptoms, medical history, and pain assessments. Efficacy endpoints included Treatment Outcome Score (TOS, maximum score = 100; minimally important difference = 30), a point-in-time measure of treatment response, and time to treatment response.ResultsForty-nine percent of 521 HAE attacks only involved abdominal symptoms. The most commonly reported abdominal symptoms were distension (77%), cramping (73%) and nausea (67%). The most common pain descriptors were tender, tiring-exhausting, aching, cramping and sickening. White blood cell counts were elevated (>10 × 10(9)/L) in 23% of attacks (mean ± SD: 15.1 ± 11.27 × 10(9)/L). A high proportion of patients reported a history of abdominal surgery, including appendectomy (23%), cholecystectomy (16.4%), and hysterectomy (8.2%). Mean TOS at 4 hours post ecallantide was 77 ± 33 versus 29 ± 65 for placebo. Median time to significant symptom resolution was 165 minutes (95% CI 136, 167) for ecallantide versus >4 hours (95% CI 161, >4 hours) for placebo. Anaphylactic reactions occurred in 6 of the 149 treated patients.ConclusionsHAE should be considered in the differential diagnosis of patients with recurrent discrete episodes of severe, unexplained crampy abdominal pain associated with nausea.Trials registrationThe data used in the analysis were gathered across multiple clinical trials conducted during the clinical development program for ecallantide. All of the studies were conducted using Good Clinical Practices (GCP) and in accordance with the ethical principles that have their origins in the Declaration of Helsinki. Each site that participated in the clinical trials obtained the appropriate IRB or Ethics Committee approval prior to enrolling any patients. All patients provided written informed consent prior to undergoing any study-related procedures. Pediatric patients provided written assent and their parents or guardians gave written informed consent.The following trials have been registered at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov: EDEMA2 (identifier NCT01826916); EDEMA3 (identifier NCT00262080); EDEMA4 (identifier NCT00457015); and DX-88/19 (identifier NCT00456508).