Explore the vast range of titles available.

Angioedema (AE), transient localized swelling due to extravasated fluid, is commonly classified as mast cell mediator-induced, bradykinin-mediated or of unknown cause. AE often occurs more than once, and it is these recurrent forms of AE that are challenging for patients and physicians, and they are the ones we focus on and refer to as AE in this review. Since effective treatment depends on the causative mediator, reliable and early diagnosis is essential. Although their clinical presentations bear similarities, many forms of angioedema exhibit specific patterns of clinical appearance or disease history that may aid in diagnosis. Here, we describe the most common differences and similarities in the mechanisms and clinical features of bradykinin-mediated and mast cell mediator-induced types of angioedema. We first provide an overview of the diseases that manifest with mast cell mediator-induced versus bradykinin-mediated angioedema as well as their respective underlying pathogenesis. We then compare these diseases for key clinical features, including angioedema location, course and duration of swelling, attack frequency, prevalence and relevance of prodromal signs and symptoms, triggers of angioedema attacks, and other signs and symptoms including wheals, age of onset, and duration. Our review and comparison of the clinical profiles of different types of angioedema incorporate our own clinical experience as well as published information. Our aim is to highlight that mast cell mediator-induced and bradykinin-mediated angioedema types share common features but are different in many aspects. Knowledge of the differences in underlying pathomechanisms and clinical profiles between different types of angioedema can help with the diagnostic approach in affected patients and facilitate targeted and effective treatment.

Background Bradykinin-mediated angioedema (Bk-AE) can be life-threatening and requires specific targeted therapies. Knowledge of its epidemiology may help optimize its management. Methods We systematically searched the medical literature to identify abstracts of interest indexed between 1948 and March, 2016. We used published national survey data on the proportion of the population treated with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) to derive estimates of the population prevalence of ACEI-AE in the USA, Germany and France. For hereditary angioedema (C1-INH-HAE) and C1-inhibitor related acquired angioedema (C1-INH-AAE), publications had to contain original epidemiologic data collection within a defined geographical area. Hereditary angioedema with normal C1-INH was not included in the analysis due to lack of clearly defined criteria. Results We identified 4 relevant publications on the prevalence of ACEI-AE, 6 on the prevalence of C1-INH-HAE, and 1 on the prevalence of C1-INH-AAE. The 1st year cumulative incidence of ACEI-AE was estimated to vary between 0.12 (population-based analyses) and 0.30 (meta-analyses of clinical trials) per 100 patient-years. The population prevalence of ACEI-AE was modeled to vary between 7 and 26 in 100,000. The prevalence of C1-INH-HAE was estimated to vary between 1.1 and 1.6 per 100,000. The prevalence of C1-INH-AAE was estimated to be 0.15 per 100,000 in one epidemiological investigation of AAE in Denmark. Conclusions Epidemiological evidence on Bk-AE is limited to North America and Europe. ACEI-AE is more common than C1-INH-HAE (~ 10:1), which is more common than C1-INH-AAE (~ 10:1). More studies are needed to comprehensively assess the epidemiological burden of Bk-AE.

Background Hereditary angioedema (HAE) is a rare genetic disease and characterized by clinical features such as paroxysmal, recurrent angioedema of the skin, the gastrointestinal tract, and the upper airways. Swelling of the skin occurs primarily in the face, extremities and genitals. Gastrointestinal attacks are accompanied by painful abdominal cramps, vomiting and diarrhea. Due to the low prevalence and the fact that HAE patients often present with rather unspecific symptoms such as abdominal cramps, the final diagnosis is often made after a long delay. The aim of this German-wide survey was to characterize the period between occurrence of first symptoms and final diagnosis regarding self-perceived health, symptom burden and false diagnoses for patients with HAE. Results Overall, 81 patients with HAE were included and participated in the telephone-based survey. Of those, the majority reported their current health status as “good” (47.5%) or “very good” (13.8%), which was observed to be a clear improvement compared to the year before final diagnosis (“good” (16.3%), “very good” (11.3%)). Edema in the extremities (85.2%) and in the gastrointestinal tract (81.5%) were the most currently reported symptoms and occurred earlier than other reported symptoms (mean age at onset 18.1 and 17.8 years, respectively). Misdiagnoses were observed in 50.6% of participating HAE patients with appendicitis and allergy being the most frequently reported misdiagnoses (40.0 and 30.0% of those with misdiagnosis, respectively). Patients with misdiagnosis often received mistreatment (80.0%) with pharmaceuticals and surgical interventions as the most frequently carried out mistreatments (65.6 and 56.3% of those with mistreatment, respectively). The mean observed diagnostic delay was 18.1 years (median 15.0 years). The diagnostic delay was higher in older patients and index patients. Conclusions This study showed that self-perceived status of health for patients is much better once the final correct diagnosis has been made and specific treatment was available. Further challenge in the future will still be to increase awareness for HAE especially in settings which are normally approached by patients at occurrence of first symptoms to assure early referral to specialists and therefore increase the likelihood of receiving an early diagnosis.

Lanadelumab is a first-line long-term prophylaxis (LTP) in hereditary angioedema (HAE). Real-life data on its long-term efficacy and safety are limited. It is unknown whether patients using lanadelumab need short-term prophylaxis (STP). To provide 4-year follow-up data for our first 34 patients treating with lanadelumab. Patients were assessed for their current injection interval, attacks, treatment satisfaction, disease control (AECT), quality of life impairment (AE-QoL), events that can induce attacks, and the use of STP since the start of their treatment with lanadelumab. Of 34 patients who started lanadelumab treatment, 32 were still using it after 4 years, with a median injection interval of 33 (range 14-90) days. HAE patients (n=28) reported longer intervals, i.e. 35 (14-90) days, than patients with angioedema due to acquired C1 inhibitor deficiency (n=4, 23 (14-31) days). With their current injection intervals, used for a mean duration of 29 ± 17 months, patients reported a yearly attack rate of 0.3 ± 0.1. More than 70% of patients were attack-free since starting their current injection interval. All patients reported well-controlled disease, i.e. ≥10 points in the AECT; 21 patients had complete control (16 points). AE-QoL scores improved further compared to our initial report, most prominently in the fears/shame domain (-6 points). Treatment satisfaction was very high. No angioedema occurred after 146 of 147 potentially attack-inducing medical procedures without STP. Our results demonstrate the long-term efficacy and safety of lanadelumab in real-life and question the need for STP in patients who use effective LTP.

Hereditary angioedema (HAE) is a rare genetic disorder characterized by recurrent episodes of skin and mucosal edema. The main treatment goal is to enable a “normal life” for all patients. However, due to high costs, there are limited options for the management of HAE in most developing and low-income countries. As a result, most of the recommended first-line treatments are not available. In this review, we attempt to highlight the disparities in health-care resources for the management of patients with HAE amongst different countries. Data was collected from HAE experts in countries who provide tabulated information regarding management and availability of HAE treatments in their countries. We reviewed the two most recent international HAE guidelines. Using India, the world’s second most populous country, as a paradigm for HAE management in lower-income countries, we reviewed the evidence for second-line and non-recommended practices reported by HAE experts. Results suggest significant inequities in provision of HAE services and treatments. HAE patients in low-income countries do not have access to life-saving acute drugs or recently developed highly effective prophylactic medications. Most low-income countries do not have specialized HAE services or diagnostic facilities, resulting in consequent long delays in diagnosis. Suggestions for optimizing the use of limited resources as a basis for future discussion and reaching a global consensus are provided. There is an urgent need to improve HAE services, diagnostics and treatments currently available to lower-income countries. We recommend that all HAE stakeholders support the need for global equity and access to these essential measures.

Hereditary angioedema (HAE) types 1/2 are rare genetic disorders leading to C1 inhibitor (C1INH) deficiency/dysfunction. Guidelines recommend long-term prophylaxis (LTP) to prevent HAE attacks. Subcutaneous (SC) C1INH replacement therapy is approved for LTP in patients with HAE (age indication varies between countries). There is little real-world data on the outcomes of patients who switch to C1INH SC in Europe, particularly those who switch from C1INH IV. This retrospective patient chart analysis captured real-world evidence of the effectiveness of C1INH SC LTP in patients with HAE in Germany (n=69) and Spain (n=37). The primary endpoint was change in annualized attack rate (AAR) in patients who used C1INH IV LTP during a 6-month baseline period and switched to C1INH SC LTP for ≥6 months. Switching to C1INH SC LTP from C1INH IV LTP was associated with a 73.2% reduction in AAR (n=48; P<0.001) compared to baseline. Emergency Room (ER) visits and rescue medication use were also significantly reduced after switching to C1INH SC LTP from C1INH IV LTP. A similar reduction in AAR (68.9%), ER visits (49.8%), and rescue medication use (61.9%) was observed in the overall population (n=105), regardless of treatment at baseline. Similar changes from baseline were seen in patients from Germany and Spain.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via the original article.

The Angioedema Control Test (AECT) is a patient-reported outcome measure developed and validated for the assessment of disease control in patients with recurrent angioedema. Its sensitivity to change and minimal clinically important difference (MCID) have hitherto not been established. Patients with recurrent angioedema due to chronic spontaneous urticaria, hereditary angioedema, or acquired C1-inhibitor deficiency were repeatedly asked to complete the AECT along with the Angioedema Quality of Life Questionnaire (AE-QoL), Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), and anchors for disease control and whether treatment was sufficient during routine care visits. The sensitivity to the change of the AECT was determined by correlating changes in its scores over time with changes in the applied anchors. The MCID was determined using anchor-based and distributional criterion-based approaches. Eighty-six cases were used for this analysis. Changes in AECT scores correlated well with AE-QoL changes (but less with changes in the DLQI) as well as other applied anchors, demonstrating its sensitivity to change. The MCID was found to be three points for improvement of angioedema control. The available number of cases with meaningful deterioration in our dataset was too low to reach a definite conclusion on the MCID for deterioration of angioedema control. The AECT is a valuable tool to assess changes in disease control in patients with recurrent angioedema over time. The lowest AECT score change that reflects a meaningful improvement of disease control to patients (MCID) is three points.

Background Hereditary angioedema (HAE) is a rare genetic disorder characterized by unpredictable, debilitating episodes of submucosal and/or subcutaneous tissue swelling, which may be life‐threatening depending on anatomic location. The two primary management strategies for HAE are ready access to effective on‐demand treatment in all patients and the prevention of attacks (short‐term prophylaxis [STP] and long‐term prophylaxis [LTP]) in appropriate patients. All approved on‐demand and most LTP medications require subcutaneous or intravenous administration. Injection‐related challenges include trypanophobia (fear of needles), difficulty with self‐administration, injection‐site reactions (e.g., pain, erythema, bleeding, bruising), and anxiety—all contributing to poor compliance and administration delays. Oral HAE treatments may improve outcomes by reducing treatment barriers. Aim To review oral therapies, approved or in development, for on‐demand treatment and/or prevention of HAE attacks. Materials and Methods To provide a comprehensive review, data was obtained from publicly available resources through a targeted PubMed literature review and supplemented by information provided on company websites (search cutoff of May 31, 2024). Results Berotralstat, an oral plasma kallikrein (PKa) inhibitor, is approved for LTP. Sebetralstat, another PKa inhibitor, is the investigational first oral on‐demand HAE treatment to complete a phase 3 trial. Deucrictibant, an oral bradykinin B2 receptor antagonist, has completed phase 2 trials for on‐demand therapy and LTP. Several other oral PKa inhibitors (ATN249, VE‐4666, and VE‐4062) are in early development for LTP. Conclusion Substantial advances have been made in the development of oral treatments for HAE. These treatments have the potential to improve and optimize clinical outcomes, satisfaction, and quality of life among patients with HAE.