Search

Background Despite a better understanding of the epidemiology, pathogenesis, and management of patients with anaphylaxis, there remain knowledge gaps. Enumerating and prioritizing these gaps would allow limited scientific resources to be directed more effectively. Objective We sought to systematically describe and appraise anaphylaxis knowledge gaps and future research priorities based on their potential impact and feasibility. Methods We convened a 25-member multidisciplinary panel of anaphylaxis experts. Panelists formulated knowledge gaps/research priority statements in an anonymous electronic survey. Four anaphylaxis themed writing groups were formed to refine statements: (1) Population Science, (2) Basic and Translational Sciences, (3) Emergency Department Care/Acute Management, and (4) Long-Term Management Strategies and Prevention. Revised statements were incorporated into an anonymous electronic survey, and panelists were asked to rate the impact and feasibility of addressing statements on a continuous 0 to 100 scale. Results The panel generated 98 statements across the 4 anaphylaxis themes: Population Science (29), Basic and Translational Sciences (27), Emergency Department Care/Acute Management (24), and Long-Term Management Strategies and Prevention (18). Median scores for impact and feasibility ranged from 50.0 to 95.0 and from 40.0 to 90.0, respectively. Key statements based on median rating for impact/feasibility included the need to refine anaphylaxis diagnostic criteria, identify reliable diagnostic, predictive, and prognostic anaphylaxis bioassays, develop clinical prediction models to standardize postanaphylaxis observation periods and hospitalization criteria, and determine immunotherapy best practices. Conclusions We identified and systematically appraised anaphylaxis knowledge gaps and future research priorities. This study reinforces the need to harmonize scientific pursuits to optimize the outcomes of patients with and at risk of anaphylaxis.

There are significant anaphylaxis data and knowledge gaps that result in suboptimal patient care and outcomes. To address these gaps there is need for collaborative, multidisciplinary research networks to strategically design practice changing research specific to the following anaphylaxis themes: Population Science, Basic and Translational Sciences, Acute Management, and Long-Term Management. Top priorities are to refine anaphylaxis diagnostic criteria, identify accurate diagnostic and predictive anaphylaxis biomarkers, standardize postanaphylaxis care (observation periods, hospitalization criteria), and determine immunotherapy best practices. Addressing these gaps will result in improved, optimal care and clinical outcomes for patients with or at risk of anaphylaxis.

Chemotherapeutic drugs have been widely used in the treatment of cancer disease for about 70 years. The development of new treatments has not hindered their use, and oncologists still prescribe them routinely, alone or in combination with other antineoplastic agents. However, all chemotherapeutic agents can induce hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs), with different incidences depending on the culprit drug. These reactions are the third leading cause of fatal drug-induced anaphylaxis in the United States. In Europe, deaths related to chemotherapy have also been reported. In particular, most reactions are caused by platinum compounds, taxanes, epipodophyllotoxins and asparaginase. Despite their prevalence and relevance, the ideal pathways for diagnosis, treatment and prevention of these reactions are still unclear, and practice remains considerably heterogeneous with vast differences from center to center. Thus, the European Network on Drug Allergy and Drug Allergy Interest Group of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology organized a task force to provide data and recommendations regarding the allergological work-up in this field of drug hypersensitivity reactions. This position paper aims to provide consensus on the investigation of HSRs to chemotherapeutic drugs and give practical recommendations for clinicians that treat these patients, such as oncologists, allergologists and internists. Key sections cover risk factors, pathogenesis, symptoms, the role of skin tests, in vitro tests, indications and contraindications of drug provocation tests and desensitization of neoplastic patients with allergic reactions to chemotherapeutic drugs. Statements, recommendations and unmet needs were discussed and proposed at the end of each section.

Paired acute and baseline serum or plasma tryptase sampling and determination have recently been included as a mechanistic approach in the diagnostic and management guidelines of perioperative immediate hypersensitivity and anaphylaxis. The timing of this paired sampling is clearly defined in international consensus statements, with the optimal window for acute tryptase sampling between 30 minutes and 2 hours after the initiation of symptoms, whereas baseline tryptase should be measured in a sample collected before the event (preop) or at least 24 hours after all signs and symptoms have resolved. A transient elevation of the acute tryptase level greater than [2 D (1.2 3 baseline tryptase level)] supports the involvement and activation of mast cells. Here, we provide the clinical, pathophysiological, and technical rationale for the procedure and interpretation of paired acute and baseline tryptase. Clinical examples, upto-date knowledge of hereditary alpha-tryptasemia as a frequent cause of baseline tryptase of 7 mg/L and higher, mastocytosis, other clonal myeloid disorders, cardiovascular or renal failure, and technical improvements resulting in continued lowering of the 95th percentile value are discussed. Clues for improved management of perioperative immediate hypersensitivity and anaphylaxis include (1) sustained dissemination and implementation of updated guidelines; (2) preoperative sample storage for deferred analysis; (3) referral for thorough allergy investigation, screening for mast cellerelated disorders, and recommendations for future anesthetic procedures; and (4) sustained collaboration between anesthesiologists, immunologists, and allergists. (C) 2021 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology

Purpose of review Anaphylactic reactions reported after Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2) RNA vaccines were expected to be more frequent in atopic subjects and attributed to its polyethylene glycol component. Recent findings Anaphylaxis to SARS-CoV2 RNA vaccines is no more frequent than in any vaccine and direct proofs for the role of its polyethylene glycol component are lacking. Summary Vaccines against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are an essential global intervention to control the current pandemic situation. Anaphylactic reactions have rapidly been reported after SARS-CoV2 RNA vaccines. This risk is now measured at 2.5-11/1 000 000 in the context of vaccine safety surveillance programs and only one case was documented to be due to polyethylene glycol. Suggestions for its role are indirect. The COVID-19 vaccination is rolling out vastly and surveillance programs are key to monitor severe adverse reactions, such as anaphylaxis. Anaphylaxis due to vaccine is extremely rare and specific cases should receive individualized investigation and care, highlighting the key role of allergists in the vaccination programmes.

Objective To review novel concepts in drug hypersensitivity and the management of immediate hypersensitivity reactions. Data Sources English language literature on MEDLINE and Embase surrounding drug hypersensitivity and desensitization. Study Selections References were selected based on relevance, date of publication, and originality. Results There are numerous citations looking at categorizing drug reactions, pathogenesis, biomarkers, and desensitization. Current understanding supports the use of a phenotype-endotype-biomarker model for categorizing immediate hypersensitivity reactions. Drug desensitization is a powerful therapeutic strategy that enables temporary induction of tolerance to medications that triggered immediate reactions. Conclusion Immediate hypersensitivity reactions are diverse in presentation and pathogenesis. Drug desensitization is an effective intervention with sufficient evidence to support its more widespread availability.

Idiopathic anaphylaxis is a condition caused by paroxysmal episodes of sudden-onset multiorgan involvement variably including laryngeal edema, urticaria, bronchoconstriction, dyspnea, hypoxia, abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and hypotension. Rarely, the episodes can lead to cardiovascular collapse and death in the absence of a clear trigger, especially in the presence of other cardiovascular comorbidities. Elevated mast cell mediators such as tryptase and histamine have been reported during episodes, and mast cells are considered the primary cells responsible for driving anaphylaxis in humans. Basophils also secrete histamine and LTC4 when activated and theoretically can contribute to symptoms. As our understanding of mast cell disorders continue to grow, the classification for these disorders evolves. The purpose of this article was 2-fold: to review the epidemiology, clinical manifestations, and diagnosis of idiopathic anaphylaxis and to discuss the classification of idiopathic anaphylaxis within the broader context of mast cell activation disorders.

Anaphylaxis is considered idiopathic when there is no known trigger. The signs and symptoms of idiopathic anaphylaxis (IA) are identical to those of anaphylaxis because of a known cause and can include cutaneous, circulatory, respiratory, gastrointestinal, and neurologic symptoms. Idiopathic anaphylaxis can be a frustrating disease for patients and health care providers. Episodes are unpredictable, and differential diagnosis is challenging. Current anaphylaxis guidelines have little specific guidance regarding differential diagnosis and long-term management of IA. Therefore, the objective of the Idiopathic Anaphylaxis Yardstick is to use published data and the authors' combined clinical experience to provide practical recommendations for the diagnosis and management of patients with IA.

Rapid drug desensitization (RDD) is a high-risk protocol that allows patients with hypersensitivity reactions to remain on first-line therapy for their underlying conditions through titration of dose increments and infusion rates. The aim of this paper is to review the most recent desensitization protocols available for drugs that are commonly used in clinical practice settings and to provide algorithms for their appropriate usage. RDD protocols involve identification of phenotypes and endotypes during the initial reaction, risk stratification, skin testing, and specific biomarkers. Patients’ protocols are personalized and can increase life expectancy and quality of life. The benefits of RDD largely outweigh the risks. All patients with hypersensitivity reactions should be evaluated for desensitization, to avoid alternatives treatments that may be less effective or intolerant patients presenting with SCARS (DRESS/SJS/TEN) are not candidates for desensitization since the mechanism of the reactions are poorly understood.

Science and medicine know no barriers, no country, no language. They are universal tools for the benefit of humankind meant to be accessible to everyone, both men and women. As women physician scientists, we all have had our own journeys wanting to be part of science and medicine.

International audience; Background: Although rare, anaphylaxis during pregnancy implies a risk to both mothers and newborns.Objective: This systematic review is intended to identify key issues in the diagnosis and management of this condition to support prevention strategies and decrease the risk for death related to anaphylaxis during pregnancy.Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane, LILACS, SciELO, and Science Direct databases for manuscripts concerning the term "anaphylaxis during pregnancy," without language restrictions. We screened studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk for bias independently in duplicate.Results: We selected 12 articles. Frequency of anaphylaxis during maternity was estimated to be 1.5 to 3.8 per 100,000 pregnancies. Only one study provided anaphylaxis mortality data in pregnant women; the rate of anaphylaxis-related maternal mortality was estimated at 0.05/100,000 live births. No standard definition of anaphylaxis severity has been used. A total of 49% to 74% of anaphylaxis cases were described during caesarean section. Beta-lactam antibiotics (58%), latex (25%), and anesthetic agents (17%) were the main causes. In 17% of reports, causative agents were proven by allergy testing. Moreover, 72% of articles proposed the same management and treatment for a clinical episode of anaphylaxis during pregnancy as for nonpregnant patients, and the use of epinephrine in the patient's care during anaphylaxis in pregnancy.Conclusions: Few studies address anaphylaxis during pregnancy. Most have been produced by nonallergy specialists. Collaboration among different specialists involved in the care of pregnant women should be established to support preventive strategies and reduce avoidable deaths.

In recent years, knowledge about mechanisms underlying mast cell activation (MCA) and accumulation in various pathologic conditions increased substantially. In addition, criteria and a classification of MCA syndromes (MCASs) have been set forth. MCAS is defined by typical clinical symptoms, a substantial increase in serum tryptase level during an attack over the patient's baseline tryptase, and a response of the symptoms to drugs targeting mast cells, mediator production, and/or mediator effects. Alternative diagnostic criteria of MCAS have also been suggested, but these alternative criteria often lack specificity and validation. In this report, we critically review the contemporary literature relating to MCAS and compare the specificity, sensitivity, and strength of MCAS-related parameters within proposals to diagnose and classify MCAS and its variants. Furthermore, we highlight the need to apply specific consensus criteria in the evaluation and classification of MCAS in individual patients. This is an urgent and important medical necessity because as an increasing number of patients are being given a misdiagnosis of MCAS based on nonspecific criteria, which contributes to confusion and frustration by patients and caregivers and sometimes may delay recognition and treatment of correct medical conditions that often turn out to be unrelated to MCA. (C) 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology.

Mastocytosis is a hematologic neoplasm characterized by expansion and focal accumulation of neoplastic mast cells (MC) in diverse organs, including the skin, bone marrow (BM), spleen, liver, and gastrointestinal tract. The World Health Organization classification divides the disease into prognostically distinct variants of cutaneous mastocytosis (CM) and systemic mastocytosis (SM). Although this classification remains valid, recent developments in the field and the advent of new diagnostic and prognostic parameters created a need to update and refine definitions and diagnostic criteria in MC neoplasms. In addition, MC activation syndromes (MCAS) and genetic features predisposing to SM and MCAS have been identified. To discuss these developments and refinements in the classification, we organized a Working Conference comprised of experts from Europe and the United States in August 2020. This article reports on outcomes from this conference. Of particular note, we propose adjustments in the classification of CM and SM, refinements in diagnostic criteria of SM variants, including smoldering SM and BM mastocytosis (BMM), and updated criteria for MCAS and other conditions involving MC. CD30 expression in MC now qualifies as a minor SM criterion, and BMM is now defined by SM criteria, absence of skin lesions and absence of B- and C-findings. A basal serum tryptase level exceeding 20 ng/mL remains a minor SM criterion, with recognition that hereditary alpha-tryptasemia and various myeloid neoplasms may also cause elevations in tryptase. Our updated proposal will support diagnostic evaluations and prognostication in daily practice and the conduct of clinical trials in MC disorders.

Mast cell disorders including hereditary alpha tryptasemia (HαT) and idiopathic mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS) can be associated with neurologic symptoms such as orthostatic intolerance, pain, and cognitive impairment. The origin of these symptoms is not well understood.To characterize neurologic findings in patients with HαT and MCAS through objective measurements.Patients with a confirmed diagnosis of HαT or MCAS with neurologic symptoms were referred for standardized autonomic testing encompassing Valsalva maneuver, deep breathing, sudomotor and tilt tests with cerebral blood flow velocity (CBFv) determination, and skin biopsies for small fiber neuropathy (SFN).There were 15 patients with HαT (age 44.4 ± 15.9 years), 16 with MCAS (34.4 ± 15.5), and 14 matched controls who were evaluated. Baseline serum tryptase level was increased in patients with HαT when compared with patients with MCAS (14.3 ± 2.5 ng/mL vs 3.8 ± 1.8; P.001) and neurologic symptoms were similar between the 2 groups. When compared with controls, orthostatic CBFv was reduced in HαT (-24.2 ± 14.3%; P.001) and MCAS (-20.8 ± 5.5%; P.001). Reduced nerve fibers consistent with SFN were found in 80% of patients with HαT and 81% of those with MCAS. Mild-to-moderate dysautonomia was detected in all patients with HαT and MCAS when results of sympathetic, parasympathetic, and sudomotor tests were combined.We provide evidence of reduced orthostatic CBFv and SFN associated with mild-to-moderate autonomic dysfunction in patients with HαT and MCAS. Our findings suggest that comprehensive autonomic testing may be helpful to explain neurologic symptoms and guide treatment in patients with HαT and MCAS.

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2021, Hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) to antineoplastic drugs are increasing due to the expanding use of classical and new drugs in a wide variety of malignancies. PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The goal of this review is to provide current best practices in the diagnosis and management of HSRs based on data and evidence. RECENT FINDINGS: A plethora of studies have provided evidence of the safety and efficacy of rapid drug desensitizations (RDD) to allow for the reintroduction of antineoplastic drugs following an HSR, based on risk stratification. Recently described biomarkers such as basophil activation test, total IgE, BRCA genotyping, and serum IL-6 can aid in guiding improved precision desensitization protocols. Personalized premedication regimens and protocols have improved RDD safety and outcomes. RDD allows for the continued use of chemotherapeutic drugs without impaired drug efficacy. RDD represents the best approach to maintain cancer patients on their most effective treatments.

Biologicals are crucial targeted therapeutic agents in oncological, immunological, and inflammatory diseases, and their use in clinical practice is broadening. In recent years, the spread of Personalized Precision Medicine has facilitated a proliferation of new treatment options, especially biologicals. Consequently, biologicals are now among the drugs that most frequently cause hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs). Patients can develop HSRs to these agents during the first-lifetime exposure or after repeated exposure, and these HSRs can be potentially life-threatening or limit therapeutic options. Despite the relatively high prevalence, the underlying mechanisms of these HSRs remain obscure, and the optimal management pathways are still a matter of discussion. In this Position Paper, the authors will provide evidence-based recommendations for diagnosing and managing HSRs to biologicals. Additionally, the document defines unmet needs as an opportunity to shape future research.

Background Immediate hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) to taxanes have been increasing in recent years, but the importance of skin tests in allergological workup has not been established. Objective In our study we tried to evaluate the role of prick and intradermal tests in the diagnosis of HSRs to paclitaxel and docetaxel. Methods In this multicenter prospective study, we enrolled patients with immediate HSRs to the aforesaid agents. Skin tests were performed on these subjects and if results were negative, intradermal tests with the culprit drug were conducted. Patients with grade 1 reactions subsequently underwent graded challenge; in cases of grade 2 or 3 reactions and/or positive test results, the culprit drug was administered with a desensitization schedule. Skin tests were also performed in 30 control subjects exposed to the taxanes without HSRs. Results A total of 84 patients (63 with HSRs to paclitaxel and 21 to docetaxel) were recruited in the period July 2015 to July 2017 by 8 centers; 58 patients (69%) developed grade 2 or 3 reactions. Prick test results were negative in all the cases, whereas intradermal test results were positive in 14 patients (10 with paclitaxel [15.9%] and 4 with docetaxel [19%]). The positivity of skin tests significantly correlated with grade 3 reactions and cutaneous involvement during HSRs. Graded challenge was performed in 16 patients without problems and 58 subjects underwent desensitization, which was well tolerated in all but 2 cases. In the control group, skin test results were negative in all the patients. Conclusions Skin tests for taxanes seem useful and can be performed in the allergological workup of subjects with HSRs to these agents, especially in cases of severe reactions with cutaneous involvement.

Mastocytosis is a group of heterogeneous disorders resulting from the clonal proliferation of abnormal mast cells and their accumulation in the skin and/or in various extracutaneous organs. Systemic mastocytosis is the most common form of mastocytosis diagnosed in adults, characterized by mast cell infiltration of one or more extracutaneous organs (with or without skin involvement). The identification of KIT D816V mutation and the emergence of novel targeted therapies have significantly improved the diagnosis and treatment of systemic mastocytosis. However, certain aspects of clinical care, particularly the diagnosis, assessment, and management of mediator-related symptoms continue to present challenges. This manuscript discusses the recommendations outlined in the NCCN Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of patients with systemic mastocytosis.

The American Initiative in Mast Cell Diseases (AIM) held its inaugural investigator conference at Stanford University School of Medicine in May 2019. The overarching goal of this meeting was to establish a Pan-American organization of physicians and scientists with multidisciplinary expertise in mast cell disease. To serve this unmet need, AIM envisions a network where basic, translational, and clinical researchers could establish collaborations with both academia and biopharma to support the development of new diagnostic methods, enhanced understanding of the biology of mast cells in human health and disease, and the testing of novel therapies. In these AIM proceedings, we highlight selected topics relevant to mast cell biology and provide updates regarding the recently described hereditary alpha-tryptasemia. In addition, we discuss the evaluation and treatment of mast cell activation (syndromes), allergy and anaphylaxis in mast cell disorders, and the clinical and biologic heterogeneity of the more indolent forms of mastocytosis. Because mast cell disorders are relatively rare, AIM hopes to achieve a coordination of scientific efforts not only in the Americas but also in Europe by collaborating with the well-established European Competence Network on Mastocytosis., The research reported in this publication was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) (award no. R13TR002722 to J.G.). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH. We thank The Mast Cell Disease Society, Inc (TMS), a national 501c3 nonprofit, for their partnership and support of AIM, for patient-centered research, and for sponsoring international physicians at this inaugural meeting. J.G. expresses gratitude for the support of the Charles and Ann Johnson Foundation, the staff of the Stanford Mastocytosis Center, and the Stanford Cancer Institute Innovation Fund. M.C., J.J.L., and D.D.M. are supported in part by the Division of Intramural Research of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, NIH. D.F.D. is supported by the Asthma and Allergic Diseases Cooperative Research Centers Opportunity Fund (award no. U19AI07053 from the NIH). P.V. has been supported by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) (grant nos. F4701-B20, F4704-B20, and P32470-B).

Self-reported penicillin allergies are frequently reported, though more than 95% of those are not truly allergic when challenged. These patients are more likely to receive alternative antibiotic regimens resulting in the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics that may be less effective, more toxic, and/or more expensive than preferred agents. Given the significant burden on patient outcomes and the healthcare system, the ability to reconcile an allergy and broaden future antibiotic options is essential. This is a narrative review describing risk stratification for penicillin skin testing, practical advice for implementation, and future directions. A summary of studies within the last 5 years is provided. The trend over the past several years has been to offer oral drug challenges to low-risk patients and skin testing to high-risk patients with a reported penicillin allergy. This review provides support for risk stratification assessment of reported penicillin allergy to optimize antibiotic use and prevent emergence of antimicrobial resistance.

Allergic Reactions to Covid-19 Vaccine The vast majority of people who have received the Covid-19 vaccine to date have had self-limited local or low-grade systemic reactions that resolve within 2 o...

SARS-CoV-2 is a novel coronavirus responsible for the clinical syndrome COVID-19. This virus was initially recognized in December 2019 in Wuhan, China and has since spread leading to a global pandemic. Mast cells (MCs) are tissue resident innate immune cells that play a pathobiologic role in a range of diseases, such as asthma, rhinitis and food allergy and MC activation disorders. MC activation leads to the release of inflammatory mediators, including tryptase and several cytokines such as interleukin (IL)-6. MCs are often active participants in propagation of inflammation during viral infection.(1) Reports of serious COVID-19 infections have identified IL-6, TNF and IL-1β as hallmarks of cytokine storm leading to severe outcomes.(2) MCs are a source of IL-6 and other proinflammatory mediators, leading to the possibility of MCs directly contributing to the severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, studies involving allergic asthma, a disease associated with increased lung MC numbers and activation, have not shown an increased risk for severe outcomes.(3) Thus, the role of MCs in SARS-CoV-2 infection remains unknown.

Mast cells (MCs) are important in intestinal homeostasis and pathogen defense but are also implicated in many of the clinical manifestations in disorders such as irritable bowel syndrome. The utility of specifically staining for MCs in order to quantify and phenotype them in intestinal biopsies in patients with gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms is controversial and is not a widely adopted practice. Whether or not intestinal MCs are increased or have a unique phenotype in individuals with hereditary alpha-tryptasemia (HαT), who have extra copies of the mast cell tryptase gene TPSAB1 and typically elevated baseline serum tryptase levels >8ng/mL is not known. We examined the duodenal biopsies of 17 patients with HαT and compared them to 15 patients with mast cell activation syndrome who had baseline serum tryptases

International audience; Background: Perioperative hypersensitivity (POH) reactions constitute a significant clinical and diagnostic challenge. A transient increase in serum tryptase during POH reflects mast cell activation (MCA) and helps to recognize an underlying hypersensitivity mechanism.Objective: To determine the diagnostic performance of different tryptase decision thresholds based on single and paired measurements to document MCA in suspected POH.Methods: Acute serum tryptase (aST) and baseline serum tryptase (bST) samples were obtained from patients referred to our outpatients clinic because of clinical POH. Tryptase samples from controls were obtained before induction (Tt0) and 1.5 hours after induction (Tt1) in uneventful anesthesia. Different cutoff points for tryptase increase over bST and the percentage increase in tryptase (%T) were calculated and compared with existing thresholds: aST > [1.2 × (bST) + 2] (consensus formula), aST higher than 11.4 ng/mL, and aST higher than 14 ng/mL.Results: Patients with POH had higher bST and aST levels compared with controls (respectively 5.15 vs 2.28 ng/mL for bST and 20.30 vs 1.92 ng/mL for aST). The consensus formula and a tryptase increase over bST of greater than or equal to 3.2 ng/mL held the highest accuracies to document MCA in POH (respectively 81% and 82%). A bST of higher than 8 ng/mL was present in 4% of controls, 5% of patients with grade 1 POH, 24% of patients with grade 2 POH, 15% of patients with grade 3 POH, and 17% of patients with grade 4 POH.Conclusions: Our data endorse the consensus formula for detection of MCA in POH. Furthermore, it shows that a bST of higher than 8 ng/mL was associated with occurrence of anaphylaxis.

Mastocytosis is a neoplasm characterized by an accumulation of mast cells in various organs and increased risk for severe anaphylaxis in patients with concomitant allergies. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a pandemic that is associated with a relatively high rate of severe lung disease and mortality. The mortality is particularly high in those with certain comorbidities and increases with age. Recently, several companies have developed an effective vaccination against COVID-19. Although the reported frequency of severe side effects is low, there is an emerging discussion about the safety of COVID-19 vaccination in patients with severe allergies and mastocytosis. However, even in these patients, severe adverse reactions are rare. We therefore recommend the broad use of COVID-19 vaccination in patients with mastocytosis on a global basis. The only well-established exception is a known or suspected allergy against a constituent of the vaccine. Safety measures, including premedication and postvaccination observation, should be considered in all patients with mastocytosis, depending on the individual personal risk and overall situation in each case. The current article provides a summary of published data, observations, and expert opinion that form the basis of these recommendations.

Objective To review type 1 hypersensitivity reactions and anaphylaxis to checkpoint inhibitor–monoclonal antibodies and its management with drug desensitization. Data Sources English-language literature on MEDLINE regarding hypersensitivity, anaphylaxis, and checkpoint inhibitor–monoclonal antibodies. Study Selections References were selected based on relevance, novelty, robustness, and applicability. Results There are well-known tissue toxicities associated to checkpoint inhibitors, but hypersensitivity reactions and anaphylaxis have been underreported. The presentation of these reactions is based on clinical phenotypes with underlying endotypes identified by specific biomarkers. Drug desensitizations have been successfully applied to checkpoint inhibitor drugs to allow patients with cancer to receive first-line therapies. This review provides current best practices for the recognition and diagnosis of hypersensitivity reactions and anaphylaxis to checkpoint inhibitors and their management using drug desensitization. Conclusion Hypersensitivity reactions and anaphylaxis have been identified as potential adverse effects induced by checkpoint inhibitor–monoclonal antibodies. Drug desensitization is a safe and effective treatment option for patients who experience hypersensitivity reactions in need of these monoclonal antibodies to improve cancer outcomes.

Background Hereditary alpha-tryptasemia (HαT) is an autosomal dominant genetic trait characterized by multiple copies of the alpha-tryptase gene at the TPSAB1 locus. Previously described symptomatology involves multiple organ systems and anaphylaxis. The spectrum of mast cell activation symptoms is unknown, as is its association with specific genotypes. Objective To describe clinical, laboratory, and genetic characteristics of patients referred for the evaluation of mast cell activation–related symptoms and genotype-confirmed HαT. Methods We retrospectively describe clinical characteristics, baseline tryptase, and tryptase genotype in 101 patients. Patients were referred for mast cell activation–related symptoms and underwent genotyping to confirm diagnosis of HαT. Results Of 101 patients, 80% were female with average tryptase of 17.2 ng/mL. Tryptase was less than 11.4 ng/mL in 8.9% and greater than 20 ng/mL in 22.3% (range 6.2-51.3 ng/mL). KIT D816V mutation was negative in all subjects tested. 2α:3β was the most common genotype but did not correlate with tryptase levels. Unprovoked anaphylaxis was noted in 57% of the subjects with heterogeneous genotypes. Most common symptoms include gastrointestinal, cutaneous, psychiatric, pulmonary, cardiovascular, and neurologic. A total of 85% of patients were taking H1- or H2-antihistamines with partial symptom relief. Omalizumab was effective at suppressing anaphylaxis or urticaria in 94% of the patients. Conclusion HαT encompasses a broad range of baseline tryptase and should be considered in patients with symptoms of mast cell activation and tryptase levels greater than 6.2 ng/mL. Patients may present with complex symptomatology including cutaneous, gastrointestinal, neurologic, and psychiatric symptoms and anaphylaxis, some of which respond to omalizumab.

International audience

International audience; Background: The issues and challenges in the diagnosis of drug allergy/hypersensitivity among children and adults in Asia are likely to be different from non-Asian countries.Objective: To study the diagnostic modalities used in the evaluation and management of drug allergy/drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) among member societies of the Asia Pacific Association of Allergy, Asthma and Clinical Immunology (APAAACI).Methods: A questionnaire comprising 41 questions was circulated electronically to member societies and individual members of APAAACI between January 23, 2020 and March 6, 2020.Results: Twenty-six respondents from 15 member societies and 1 individual member responded. European DHR guidelines were most commonly used. Skin prick and intradermal testing was used by 100%, with only 60% having access to commercial penicillin skin test reagents. In vitro-specific IgE tests were used by 75%, and basophil activation test by 56.3% for immediate DHR. Patch tests were used by 75% in contrast to lymphocyte transformation tests by 25% for nonimmediate DHR. Drug provocation tests were used by 68.8%, the most common indication being to exclude hypersensitivity where history/symptoms were not suggestive of drug hypersensitivity/allergy (93.3%). Human leukocyte antigen (HLA) genotype testing was mandatory among 25% respondents before new carbamazepine prescriptions, and 8.3% for allopurinol prescriptions.Conclusions: There was increased use of skin testing for iodinated contrast media hypersensitivity and patch testing for nonimmediate DHR. HLA genotype testing prior to new carbamazepine, allopurinol and abacavir prescriptions remain variable despite strong associations for severe cutaneous adverse reactions with Asian ethnicity. Results of this survey form a useful framework for developing educational and training needs and for improving access to drug allergy diagnostic and treatment modalities across APAAACI member societies.

Background There is no widely adopted severity grading system for acute allergic reactions, including anaphylactic and nonanaphylactic reactions, thus limiting the ability to optimize and standardize management practices and advance research. Objective The aim of this study was to develop a severity grading system for acute allergic reactions for use in clinical care and research. Methods From May to September 2020, we convened a 21-member multidisciplinary panel of allergy and emergency care experts; 9 members formed a writing group to critically appraise and assess the strengths and limitations of prior severity grading systems and develop the structure and content for an optimal severity grading system. The entire study panel then revised the grading system and sought consensus by utilizing Delphi methodology. Results The writing group recommended that an optimal grading system encompass the severity of acute allergic reactions on a continuum from mild allergic reactions to anaphylactic shock. Additionally, the severity grading system must be able to discriminate between clinically important differences in reaction severity to be relevant in research while also being intuitive and straightforward to apply in clinical care. Consensus was reached for all elements of the proposed severity grading system. Conclusion We developed a consensus severity grading system for acute allergic reactions, including anaphylactic and nonanaphylactic reactions. Successful international validation, refinement, dissemination, and application of the grading system will improve communication among providers and patients about the severity of allergic reactions and will help advance future research.

Background The use of inconsistent definitions for anaphylaxis outcomes limits our understanding of the natural history and epidemiology of anaphylaxis, hindering clinical practice and research efforts. Objective Our aim was to develop consensus definitions for clinically relevant anaphylaxis outcomes by utilizing a multidisciplinary group of clinical and research experts in anaphylaxis. Methods Using Delphi methodology, we developed agenda topics and drafted questions to review during monthly conference calls. Through online surveys, a 19-member panel consisting of experts in allergy and/or immunology and emergency medicine rated their level of agreement with the appropriateness of statements on a scale of 1 to 9. A median value of 1.0 to 3.4 was considered inappropriate, a median value of 3.5 to 6.9 was considered uncertain, and a median value of 7.0 to 9.0 was considered appropriate. A disagreement index was then calculated, with values less than 1.0 categorized as “consensus reached.” If consensus was not reached after the initial survey, subsequent surveys incorporating the aggregate de-identified responses from prior surveys were sent to panel members. This process was repeated until consensus was reached or 4 survey rounds had been completed, after which the question was categorized as “no consensus reached.” Results The panel developed outcome definitions for persistent, refractory, and biphasic anaphylaxis, as well as for persistent and biphasic nonanaphylactic reactions. There was also consensus among panel members regarding the need to develop an anaphylaxis severity grading system. Conclusion Dissemination and application of these definitions in clinical care and research will help standardize the terminology used to describe anaphylaxis outcomes and serve as the foundation for future research, including research aimed at development of an anaphylaxis severity grading system.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) (caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) pandemic has massively distorted our health care systems and caused catastrophic consequences in our affected communities. The number of victims continues to increase, and patients at risk can only be protected to a degree, because the virulent state may be asymptomatic. Risk factors concerning COVID-19 induced morbidity and mortality include advanced age, an impaired immune system, cardiovascular or pulmonary diseases, obesity, diabetes mellitus, and cancer treated with chemotherapy. Here, we discuss the risk and impact of COVID-19 in patients with mastocytosis and mast cell activation syndromes. Because no published data are yet available, expert opinions are, by necessity, based on case experience and reports from patients. Although the overall risk to acquire the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 may not be elevated in mast cell disease, certain conditions may increase the risk of infected patients to develop severe COVID-19. These factors include certain comorbidities, mast cell activation related events affecting the cardiovascular or bronchopulmonary system, and chemotherapy or immunosuppressive drugs. Therefore, such treatments should be carefully evaluated on a case-by-case basis during a COVID-19 infection. In contrast, other therapies, such as anti-mediator-type drugs, venom immunotherapy, or vitamin D, should be continued. Overall, patients with mast cell disorders should follow the general and local guidelines in the COVID-19 pandemic and advice from their medical provider.

Background: Patients with mast cell (MC) activation symptoms and elevated baseline serum tryptase level (MCAS-T) may not necessarily have a clonal MC disorder. Many are diagnosed with hereditary a-tryptasemia (HaT), a genetic trait characterized by autosomal dominant inheritance of multiple copies of TPSAB1 encoding a-tryptase and increased risk for severe anaphylaxis.Objective: The aim of our study was to identify and characterize bone marrow MC histopathologic features specific for MCAS-T.Methods: A total of 43 patients with MCAS-T underwent evaluation, including bone marrow biopsy, for a MC disorder. The results of the work-up for clonal MC disorders such as systemic mastocytosis and monoclonal MC activation syndrome were negative. Bone marrow MC histopathology was reviewed to identify characteristic features of MCAS-T. A subgroup of patients was available for tryptase genotyping.Results: Patients with MCAS-T showed unique morphologic and histologic features when compared with controls. MCs were larger (P < .01), hypogranular (P < .01), frequently detected in paratrabecular (P < .05) and perivascular (P < .01) locations, and associated with bone marrow eosinophilia (P < .01). A total of 10 patients who were available for tryptase genotyping were all confirmed to have HaT. This subgroup was representative of the larger MCAS-T cohort.Conclusion: We report unique bone marrow MC phenotypic and histopathologic changes in patients with MCAS-T. These morphologic changes are associated with an elevated tryptase level that has been confirmed to be caused by HaT in all patients available for testing. (J Allergy Clin Immunol 2021;147:1497-501.)