Search

Background: H1-antihistamines (H1AH) are the first-line treatment for chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU), but 50% of patients have inadequate disease control at standard doses., Objective: To assess the comorbidity burden and healthcare resource utilization (HRU) associated with non-response to H1AH-based treatments; to identify predictors of non-response., Methods: Optum® de-identified Electronic Health Record dataset (2007-2020) was used to identify adult patients with CSU who initiated a H1AH, alone or in combination with other oral non-biologics (index treatment). Based on twelve-month treatment patterns observed after index treatment initiation, patients were categorized as responders (continued index treatment or had only 1 next H1AH treatment without corticosteroids) or non-responders (continued corticosteroids or had 2 or more treatment switches). Patient characteristics and HRU were assessed in the 12 months before (baseline) and ≥12 months after (follow-up) index treatment initiation. Baseline predictors associated with non-response were identified using machine learning., Results: There were 17 062 patients who met inclusion criteria, and 14824 (86.9%) were classified as non-responders. A higher proportion of non-responders had records of CSU-related symptoms, comorbidities, polypharmacy, and certain laboratory tests than responders at baseline. A higher proportion of non-responders than responders visited an allergist or dermatologist during follow-up (59.5% vs 53.0%). Non-responders had a larger increase in hospitalizations (15.7% vs -2.4%) than responders during follow-up vs baseline. Predictors of non-response included index and baseline treatment classes, types of specialists seen, chronic pulmonary disease, depression, and female sex., Conclusion: A large proportion of CSU patients treated with H1AH-based therapies had uncontrolled disease, contributing to increased HRU and patient burden. Non-responders had more comorbidities and HRU at baseline and follow-up, with steep increases in follow-up hospitalizations relative to baseline, highlighting an urgent need for early disease control., Competing Interests: WS has served on Research, Consultant and Advisory Boards for Novartis, Regeneron, Sanofi, Genentech, AstraZeneca, and Amgen, and Speaker's Bureau for Regeneron, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, and Amgen. DP, MAW, and MK are employees of Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation. MMB is an employee of Novartis Pharma AG. IP and JS are employees of Analysis Group, Inc., a consulting company that has provided paid consulting services to Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, which funded the development and conduct of this study and manuscript., (© 2023 The Authors.)

The allergy section of the electronic health record (EHR) is ideally reviewed and updated by health care workers during routine outpatient visits, emergency room visits, inpatient hospitalizations, and surgical procedures. This EHR section has the potential to help proactively and comprehensively avoid exposures to drugs, contact irritants, foods, and other agents for which, based on an individual's medical history and/or genetics, there is increased risk for adverse outcomes with future exposures. Because clinical decisions are made and clinical decision support is triggered based on allergy details from the EHR, the allergy module needs to provide meaningful, accurate, timely, and comprehensive allergy information. Although the allergy section of the EHR must meet these requirements to guide appropriate clinical decisions and treatment plans, current EHR allergy modules have not achieved this standard. We urge EHR vendors to collaborate with allergists to optimize and modernize allergy documentation. A work group within the Adverse Reactions to Drugs, Biologicals, and Latex Committee of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology was formed to create recommendations for allergy documentation in the EHR. Whereas it is recognized that the term "allergy" is often used incorrectly because most adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are not true immune-mediated hypersensitivity reactions, "allergy" in this article includes allergies and hypersensitivities as well as side effects and intolerances. Our primary objective is to provide guidance for the current state of allergy documentation in the EHR. This guidance includes clarification of the definition of specific ADR types, reconciliation of confirmed ADRs, and removal of disproved or erroneous ADRs. This document includes a proposal for the creation, education, and implementation of a drug allergy labeling system that may allow for more accurate EHR documentation for improved patient safety., (Copyright © 2022 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: None disclosed.

Background: Patients with penicillin allergy labels often receive alternative antibiotics for perioperative prophylaxis, as opposed to first-line cephalosporins (cefazolin/cefuroxime). Provider misconceptions about the risk of cross-reactivity likely drive this prescribing behavior, which is problematic because of its association with increased risk of surgical-site infections., Objective: To develop, implement, and assess the safety of a streamlined approach to perioperative antibiotic selection for surgical patients with a penicillin allergy label, to reduce the use of second-line antibiotics., Methods: A multidisciplinary task force developed an institutional algorithm for antibiotic selection in penicillin-allergic surgical patients. The percentage of patients receiving a first-line cephalosporin was compared before and after algorithm utilization. The safety of this approach was assessed via chart review of all patients who received epinephrine or diphenhydramine in the operating room, or diphenhydramine within 24 hours postoperatively, assessing for any adverse reactions to cephalosporin administration., Results: Between September 2016 and May 2019, 9.3% of surgical patients had documented penicillin allergy (n = 2296). At baseline, 22% of these patients received a cephalosporin, with an increase to more than 80% after algorithm implementation (P < .0001). Among 551 patients with penicillin allergy label who received a cephalosporin after algorithm implementation, no immediate allergic reactions requiring epinephrine were identified; 1 patient had a delayed rash that did not require cephalosporin discontinuation. Three patients received diphenhydramine for "itching" without rash in the setting of concomitant narcotic administration., Conclusions: Using a streamlined algorithm, we were able to significantly reduce the use of second-line antibiotics in penicillin-allergic surgical patients without severe adverse reactions., (Copyright © 2019 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Pegvaliase (Palynziq®) was FDA approved in 2018 as an enzyme substitution therapy in patients with Phenylketonuria. However, various drug induced hypersensitivity adverse events (HAEs) have been reported. We present a case of Pegvaliase (Palynziq®) induced anaphylaxis and successful desensitization. A 13-step desensitization protocol was performed using three solution concentrations of Palynziq with premedication of diphenhydramine and prednisone in an outpatient setting. The patient tolerated the desensitization and was able to continue Palynziq.

Long-term prophylactic antibiotics are being widely implemented as primary or adjunctive therapy in primary immune deficiencies. This practice has transformed clinical outcomes in the setting of chronic granulomatous disease, complement deficiencies, Mendelian susceptibility to mycobacterial disease, Wiskott-Aldrich syndrome, hyper-IgE syndrome, Toll signaling defects, and prevented Pneumocystis in patients with T-cell deficiencies. Yet, controlled trials are few in the context of primary antibody deficiency syndromes, and most of this practice has been extrapolated from data in patients who are immune competent and with recurrent acute otitis media, chronic rhinosinusitis, cystic fibrosis, and bronchiectasis. The paucity of guidelines on the subject is reflected in recent surveys among practicing immunologists that highlight differences of habit regarding this treatment. Such discrepancies reinforce the lack of standard protocols on the subject. This review will provide evidence for the use of antibiotic prophylaxis in various primary immune deficiency populations, especially highlighting the role antibiotic prophylaxis in primary antibody deficiency syndromes. We also discussed the relationship of long-term antibiotic use and the prevalence of resistant pathogens. Overall, examination of available data on the use of prophylactic antibiotics in antibody deficiency syndromes merit future investigation in well-designed multicenter prospective trials because this population has few other management options., (Copyright © 2013 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)