| 2020 | Does hereditary angioedema make COVID-19 worse? | World Allergy Organ J | The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has spread rapidly worldwide. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the causative agent for COVID-19, enters host cells via angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and depletes ACE2, which is necessary for bradykinin metabolism. The depletion of ACE2 results in the accumulation of des-Arg (9)-bradykinin and possible bradykinin, both of which bind to bradykinin receptors and induce vasodilation, lung injury, and inflammation. It is well known that an overactivated contact system and excessive production of bradykinin comprise the key mechanisms that drive the pathogenesis of hereditary angioedema (HAE). It is reasonable to speculate that COVID-19 may increase disease activity in patients with HAE and vice versa. In this review, we explore the potential interactions between COVID-19 and HAE in terms of the contact system, the complement system, cytokine release, increased T helper 17 cells, and hematologic abnormalities. We conclude with the hypothesis that comorbidity with HAE might favor COVID-19 progression and may worsen its outcomes, while COVID-19 might in turn aggravate pre-existing HAE and prompt the onset of HAE in asymptomatic carriers of HAE-related mutations. Based on the pathophysiologic links, we suggest that long-term prophylaxis should be considered in patients with HAE at risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection, especially the prophylactic use of C1 inhibitor and lanadelumab and that HAE patients must have medications for acute attacks of angioedema. Additionally, therapeutic strategies employed in HAE should be considered for the treatment of COVID-19, and clinical trials should be performed. |
| 2014 | Adverse skin reactions to iodinated x-ray contrast agents in healthy rats. | Invest Radiol | The aim of this preclinical study on healthy Sprague-Dawley rats was to determine whether differences exist in the induction of adverse skin reactions after the intravenous administration of a monomeric and 2 dimeric iodinated nonionic contrast agents.After intravenous injection of iopromide (monomeric), iodixanol (dimeric), and iotrolan (dimeric) at a dose of 4 g iodine/kg of body weight, mechanical ear volume measurements (10 minute after injection) and intravital microscopy (baseline, 5 minutes after injection) of the ear with the near-infrared dye indocyanine green were performed to determine the volume change and plasma extravasation. Histopathological analysis (20 minutes, 1 hour, and 3 hours after injection) was performed to diagnose alterations in the skin. Blood plasma was analyzed to identify elevated levels of histamine (5 minutes after injection) and inflammatory markers (a multianalyte profile of 58 markers; 1 hour and 3 hours after injection).Only iodixanol induced immediate angioedema formation, with a 100% incidence rate and with slight mast cell infiltration in the ear, muzzle, and paws. The ear showed a 53% volume increase and strong extravasation of plasma proteins into the interstitium, which correlated with highly (11-fold) increased plasma histamine levels 5 minutes after injection. Elevated levels of tumor necrosis factor-α (7.1-fold), macrophage inflammatory protein (MIP)-1α (3.2-fold), and MIP-2 (7.7-fold) were identified 1 hour after the iodixanol injection. Increased levels (fold-change) of MIP-1β (14; 6.3), monocyte chemotactic protein-1 (3.3; 3.7), monocyte chemotactic protein-3 (2.4; 3.0), stem cell factor (1.7; 2), vascular endothelial growth factor (2; 2.1), and interferon gamma-induced protein-10 (4.1; 39.1) were identified 1 hour and 3 hours after the iodixanol administration, respectively. The level of these molecules remained unchanged after the iopromide and iotrolan injections (except for stem cell factor).A reversible anaphylactoid-like reaction in healthy Sprague-Dawley rats was observed after the iodixanol administration but not after the monomeric iopromide or dimeric iotrolan injections. Therefore, we conclude that the induction of adverse skin reactions is not per se because of a class effect of dimeric contrast agent. |