Haney Singleton (blackarrow91)

unction and was more sensitive at reflecting airway hyperresponsiveness, inflammation, and disease severity as compared with FEV1% in patients with asthma. Our data suggest further assessment of FEF25-75% in asthma management, particularly for those with SAD who present normal FEV1%. Rapid drug desensitization (RDD) becomes a crucial procedure to allow treatment continuation in patients who suffer drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) tochemotherapeutic (CMT) and biological agents (BA). The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy and safety of a one-bag dilution protocol (1DP) with a conventional three-bag dilution protocol (3DP) for desensitization of patients with CMT or BA hypersensitivity. Retrospective analysis of patients with immediate DHRs to CMT or BA who underwent at least 1 RDD procedure in our department between 2014 and 2019 was performed. Demographical data, clinical history, skin tests, tryptase levels, and risk assessment were registered. The safety, tolerability, occurrence, and severity of breakthrough reactions (BTR) with 3DP and 1DP were compared. After the allergy workup, 157 patients fulfilled criteria to undergo RDD (137 females, mean age 60.44 ± 12.6 years). A total of 639 RDDs (543 CMT and 96 BA) were performed using 3DP in 205 (48 patients) and 1DP in 434 (109 patients). Almost all procedures (636) were completed successfully. No BTR occurred in the first RDD in 52% and 51% of the 3DP and 1DP, respectively. Most BTR were mild. HA130 Moderate-severe BTR occurred in 17% with 3DP and 9% with 1DP. There were no statistical differences between protocols regarding the rate and severity of BTR. RDD with 1DP to CMT and BA has equivalent outcomes to a 3DP desensitization in a selected population of patients in terms of efficacy, tolerability, and safety. Moreover, 1DP reduces the time required for RDD and simplifies the logistics. RDD with 1DP to CMT and BA has equivalent outcomes to a 3DP desensitization in a selected population of patients in terms of efficacy, tolerability, and safety. Moreover, 1DP reduces the time required for RDD and simplifies the logistics. Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) has increased rapidly and has been well characterized. However, no nationwide survey has been conducted regarding non-esophageal eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorders (non-EoE EGIDs), and they remain poorly understood. To compare the clinical features and natural histories of non-EoE EGIDs and EoE by using the same questionnaire, for all ages. We conducted a nationwide hospital-based survey of patients who visited hospitals from January 2013 through December 2017. We randomly selected 10,000 hospitals that perform endoscopy. We analyzed the demographics, symptoms, gastrointestinal histology, treatments, and natural histories of EoE and non-EoE EGIDs. A total of 2906 hospitals responded to the questionnaire. We identified 1542 patients and obtained detailed data for 786 patients, consisting of 39% EoE and 61% non-EoE EGIDs. The clinical characteristics were analyzed for patients who met the "definite" criteria that excluded comorbidities. Non-EoE EGIDs showed no gender difference, whereas EoE was male-predominant. Tissue eosinophilia was often seen in the small intestine (62%) and stomach (49%). The frequency of hypoproteinemia was high (27%) in childhood. Children also had more serious symptoms and complications than adults restriction of daily life activity (P= .009), failure to grow/weight loss (P= .008), and surgery (P= .01). For both diseases, the most common natural history was the continuous type 66% (95% confidence interval [CI] 58-74) in EoE and 64% (95% CI 55-72) in non-EoE EGIDs. The percentage of persistent patients with non-EoE EGIDs was almost the same as those with EoE. Complications were more frequent in children than in adults. The percentage of persistent patients with non-E