Search

Abstract Drug allergy encompasses a spectrum of immunologically-mediated hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) with varying mechanisms and clinical presentations. This type of adverse drug reaction (ADR) not only affects patient quality of life, but may also lead to delayed treatment, unnecessary investigations, and increased morbidity and mortality. Given the spectrum of symptoms associated with the condition, diagnosis can be challenging. Therefore, referral to an allergist experienced in the diagnosis and management of drug allergy is recommended if a drug-induced allergic reaction is suspected. Diagnosis relies on a careful history and physical examination and, in some instances, skin testing or in vitro testing and drug challenges. The most effective strategy for the management of allergist-confirmed drug allergy is avoidance or discontinuation of the offending drug. When available, alternative medications with unrelated chemical structures should be substituted. Cross-reactivity among drugs should also be taken into consideration when choosing alternative agents. Additional therapy for drug HSRs may include topical corticosteroids, oral antihistamines and, in severe cases, systemic corticosteroids and other immunomodulators. In the event of anaphylaxis, the treatment of choice is intramuscular epinephrine. If a patient with a history of anaphylaxis requires a specific drug and there is no acceptable alternative, desensitization to that drug may be considered. This article provides a background on drug allergy and strategies for the diagnosis and management of some of the most common drug-induced allergic reactions.

Abstract Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is a potentially disease-modifying therapy that is effective for the treatment of allergic rhinitis/conjunctivitis, allergic asthma and stinging insect hypersensitivity. The decision to proceed with AIT should be made on a case-by-case basis, based on a comprehensive evaluation of the patient, allergy testing and a thorough discussion with the patient about treatment goals, risks vs. benefits, and long-term commitment to the treatment plan. For those with allergic rhinitis and/or asthma, it is also important to consider individual patient factors, such as the degree to which symptoms can be reduced by avoidance measures and pharmacological therapy, the amount and type of medication required to control symptoms, the adverse effects of pharmacological treatment, and patient preferences. Since AIT is associated with a risk of anaphylaxis, it should only be prescribed by physicians who are adequately trained in the treatment of allergic conditions. Furthermore, for subcutaneous therapy, injections must be given under medical supervision in clinics that are equipped to manage anaphylaxis. In this article, we review the indications and contraindications, patient selection criteria, and details regarding the administration, safety and efficacy of AIT for allergens other than foods. Immunotherapy for food allergy will be discussed in the Oral Immunotherapy article in this supplement.

Abstract Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a common disorder that is strongly linked to asthma and conjunctivitis. Classic symptoms include nasal congestion, nasal itch, rhinorrhea and sneezing. A thorough history, physical examination and assessment of allergen sensitization are important for establishing the diagnosis of AR. Intranasal corticosteroids and second-generation antihistamines are the mainstay of treatment. Allergen immunotherapy is an effective immune-modulating treatment for use in addition to or as an alternative to pharmacologic therapy. This article provides an overview on the pathophysiology, diagnosis, and appropriate management of AR.

Abstract Anaphylaxis is an acute, potentially fatal systemic hypersensitivity reaction with varied mechanisms and clinical presentations. Although prompt recognition and treatment of anaphylaxis are imperative, both patients and healthcare professionals often fail to recognize and diagnose its early signs. Clinical manifestations vary widely, however, the most common signs are cutaneous symptoms, including urticaria and angioedema. Immediate intramuscular administration of epinephrine into the anterolateral thigh is first-line therapy, and is always safe even if the diagnosis is uncertain. The mainstays of long-term management include specialist assessment, allergen avoidance measures, and the provision of an epinephrine auto-injector with an individualized anaphylaxis emergency plan. This article provides an overview of the causes, clinical features, diagnosis, and acute as well as long-term management of anaphylaxis.

Allergic rhinitis (AR), the most prevalent immunological disease, affects approximately 400 million individuals globally and can significantly impact quality of life (QoL). Despite nearly 25 years of guidelines, AR remains largely under- diagnosed, suboptimally treated and poorly controlled. In the light of new knowledge and treatment options, there is a necessity to update or revise fundamental AR definitions to facilitate communication across diverse specialties engaged in its treatment and to improve patient care. The European Forum for Research and Education in Allergy and Airway Diseases (EUFOREA) convened a meeting of experts and patient representatives to deliberate the optimal methodology for measuring AR treatment responses and establishing novel treatment goals. This paper presents a consensus on revised AR definitions, including control, severe allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (SARC), refractory severe allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (R-SARC), remission, resolution, improvement, exacerbation, treatable traits (TTs), treat to target, relapse, progression, disease modification, and prevention.

Abstract Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a prevalent disease in Canada that affects both children and adults. Several guidelines for the management of AR have been published by professional allergy societies worldwide. However, there are regional differences in the clinical management of AR, and regulatory approval of some AR pharmacotherapies varies among countries. Thus, six research questions specific to the treatment of AR in Canada were identified for this focused practice parameter. Reviews of the literature published since 2016 were conducted to obtain evidence-based support for the responses of the Work Group to each research question. In response to research question 1 “In patients with symptoms indicative of AR, is serum-specific IgE sufficient to identify candidates for immunotherapy or is a skin prick test mandatory?” the Work Group concluded that either sIgE testing or skin prick test are acceptable for diagnosing AR and guiding immunotherapy. In response to research question 2 “When taking into account the preferences of the patient and the prescriber (stakeholder engagement) should second-generation oral antihistamine (OAH) or intranasal corticosteroid (INCS) be first line?” the Work Group concluded that existing guidelines generally agree on the use of INCS as a first-line therapy used for AR, however, patient and provider preferences and considerations can easily shift the first choice to a second-generation OAH. In response to research question 3 “Is a combination intranasal antihistamine (INAH)/INCS formulation superior to INCS plus OAH? Do they become equivalent after prolonged use?” the Work Group concluded that that the combination INAH/INCS is superior to an INCS plus OAH. However, there was insufficient evidence to answer the second question. In response to research question 4 “Do leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRA) have a greater benefit than OAH in AR for some symptoms to justify a therapeutic trial in those who cannot tolerate INCS?” the Work Group concluded that LTRAs have inferior, or at best equivalent, daytime or overall symptom control compared with OAH, but LTRAs may improve nighttime symptom control and provide benefits in patients with AR and concomitant asthma. In response to research question 5 “Should sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) tablets be considered first-line immunotherapeutic options over subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) based on the evidence of efficacy?” the Work Group concluded that the choice of SLIT or SCIT cannot be made on efficacy alone, and differences in other factors outweigh any differences in efficacy. In response to research question 6 “Based on efficacy data, should ALL patients seen by an allergist be offered SLIT or SCIT as a treatment option?” the Work Group concluded that the efficacy data suggests that SLIT or SCIT should be used broadly in patients with AR, but other clinical concerns also need to be taken into consideration.

Abstract Background Asthma is a chronic airway inflammatory disease that affects millions of Canadians and often contributes to higher levels of anxiety among patients. Since the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic was a time of increased anxiety and fear among the Canadian population, it was thought that those with asthma may experience heightened anxiety levels due to uncertain access to care, the potential to misinterpret asthma symptoms for symptoms of COVID-19 (or vice versa), and the concern about being treated differently by those around them when experiencing asthma symptoms. Therefore, this study sought to perform a cross-sectional analysis of the asthma-anxiety relationship in adults with and without asthma in the unique context of the COVID-19 pandemic from a Canadian perspective. Methods This study employed the COVID-19 Associated Anxiety in Allergic Rhinitis and Asthma patients Experiencing Symptoms (CAAARES) survey, consisting of COVID-19-specific questions, the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Assessment-7 (GAD-7) and the Asthma Control Questionnaire-6 (ACQ-6). Data collection occurred through the Qualtrics XM platform and data analyses were conducted with the IBM SPSS Statistics 28 software. Results A total of 741 valid responses were collected (asthma group, n = 244; control group, n = 497). 31.6% and 26.2% of respondents in the asthma and control groups, respectively, met the diagnostic criteria for GAD. There was no significant difference (p = .067) in mean GAD-7 scores between the two groups. A Hierarchal Multiple Regression (HMR) model was developed, and neither asthma status nor ACQ-6 score had a significant predictive effect on the GAD-7 score. There was a statistically significant (p

Epinephrine autoinjectors (EAIs) are used for the treatment of severe allergic reactions in a community setting; however, their utility is limited by low prescription fulfillment rates, failure to carry, and failure to use due to fear of needles. Given that delayed administration of epinephrine is associated with increased morbidity/mortality, there has been a growing interest in developing needle-free, easy-to-use delivery devices. neffy (epinephrine nasal spray) consists of three Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved components: epinephrine, Intravail A3 (absorption enhancer), and a Unit Dose Spray (UDS). neffy’s development pathway was established in conjunction with the FDA and the European Medicines Agency and included multiple clinical trials to evaluate pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic responses under a variety of conditions, such as self-administration and allergic and infectious rhinitis, as well as an animal anaphylaxis model of severe hypotension, where neffy demonstrated a pharmacokinetic profile that is within the range of approved injection products and a pharmacodynamic response that is as good or better than injections. The increased pulse rate (PR) and blood pressure (BP) observed even one minute following the administration of neffy confirm the activation of α and β adrenergic receptors, which are the key components of epinephrine’s mechanism of action. The results suggest that neffy will provide a safe and effective needle-free option for the treatment of severe allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis.

Abstract Background The Champlain BASE™ and Ontario eConsult services are virtual platforms that serve to facilitate contact between primary care providers and specialists across Ontario, relaying patient-specific questions to relevant specialists via a secure web-based platform. Despite ample evidence regarding the general effectiveness of these platforms, their utility as it pertains to clinical concerns regarding COVID-19 vaccines has not yet been explored. Methods We performed a cross-sectional descriptive analysis of COVID-19 vaccine related eConsults on Ontario patients completed by five allergy specialists between February and October of 2021. 4318 COVID-19 vaccine-related eConsults were completed in total during this time; with 1857 completed by the five allergists participating in this analysis. Question types/content were categorized using a taxonomy developed through consensus on a weighted monthly sample of 499 total cases. Data regarding whether external resources were required to answer each eConsult, impact on primary care provider referral decisions, and allergy consultant response times were collected. A 2-question survey was completed by primary care providers following eConsultation and results were collected. Results 41.08% of eConsults received involved safety concerns regarding COVID-19 vaccine administration in the setting of prior allergic disease and another 36.1% involved a potential reaction the first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. 72.1% of eConsults were answered by specialist without needing external resources, and only 9.8% of all eConsults received resulted in a recommendation for formal in-person referral to Clinical Immunology & Allergy specialist or another subspecialty. Average time to complete eConsult was 16.4 min, and 79.7% of PCP eConsult queries which would have traditionally resulted in formal consultation were resolved based on advice provided in the eConsult without need for in-person assessment. Conclusions Our study demonstrates the utility of the eConsult service as it pertains to COVID-19 vaccine-related concerns. The eConsult platform proved an effective tool in diverting the need for in-person assessment by an Allergist or other medical specialty. This is significant given the large volume of eConsults completed by Allergists, and demonstrates the impact of an effective electronic delivery of care model during a time of strained resources and public health efforts directed at mass vaccination.

Abstract Background Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP) often coexists with lower airway disease. With the overlap between upper and lower airway disease, optimal management of the upper airways is undertaken in conjunction with that of the lower airways. Biologic therapy with targeted activity within the Type 2 inflammatory pathway can improve the clinical signs and symptoms of both upper and lower airway diseases. Knowledge gaps nevertheless exist in how best to approach patient care as a whole. There have been sixteen randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trails performed for CRSwNP targeted components of the Type 2 inflammatory pathway, notably interleukin (IL)-4, IL-5 and IL-13, IL- 5R, IL-33, and immunoglobulin (Ig)E. This white paper considers the perspectives of experts in various disciplines such as rhinology, allergy, and respirology across Canada, all of whom have unique and valuable insights to contribute on how to best approach patients with upper airway disease from a multidisciplinary perspective. Methods A Delphi Method process was utilized involving three rounds of questionnaires in which the first two were completed individually online and the third was discussed on a virtual platform with all the panelists. A national multidisciplinary expert panel of 34 certified specialists was created, composed of 16 rhinologists, 7 allergists, and 11 respirologists who evaluated the 20 original statements on a scale of 1–9 and provided comments. All ratings were quantitively reviewed by mean, median, mode, range, standard deviation and inter-rater reliability. Consensus was defined by relative interrater reliability measures—kappa coefficient ( $$\kappa$$ κ ) value > 0.61. Results After three rounds, a total of 22 statements achieved consensus. This white paper only contains the final agreed upon statements and clear rationale and support for the statements regarding the use of biologics in patients with upper airway disease. Conclusion This white paper provides guidance to Canadian physicians on the use of biologic therapy for the management of upper airway disease from a multidisciplinary perspective, but the medical and surgical regimen should ultimately be individualized to the patient. As more biologics become available and additional trials are published we will provide updated versions of this white paper every few years. Graphical abstract

Abstract The novel coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has severely impacted the training of health care professional students because of concerns of potential asymptomatic transmission to colleagues and vulnerable patients. From May 27th, 2020, to June 23rd 2021; at a time when B.1.1.7 (alpha) and B.1.617.2 (delta) were the dominant circulating variants, PCR testing was conducted on 1,237 nasopharyngeal swabs collected from 454 asymptomatic health care professional students as they returned to their studies from across Canada to Kingston, ON, a low prevalence area during that period for COVID-19. Despite 46.7% of COVID-19 infections occurring in the 18–29 age group in Kingston, severe-acute-respiratory coronavirus-2 was not detected in any of the samples suggesting that negligible asymptomatic infection occurred in this group and that PCR testing in this setting may not be warranted as a screening tool.

Abstract Background Allergy immunotherapy (AIT), in the form of subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) with alum-precipitated aqueous extracts, SCIT with a modified ragweed pollen allergen tyrosine adsorbate (MRPATA; Pollinex®-R), or a sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT)-tablet are options for the treatment of ragweed pollen allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (ARC) in Canadian children. A cost minimization analysis evaluated the economic implications of the use of the ragweed SLIT-tablet vs SCIT in Canadian children with ragweed ARC. Methods A cost minimization analysis was conducted comparing the short ragweed SLIT-tablet, 12 Amb a 1-U, preseasonally with preseasonal ragweed SCIT, annual ragweed SCIT, or MRPATA. The analysis was conducted over a time horizon of 3 years from a public payer perspective in Ontario and Quebec. Resources and costs associated with medication and services of healthcare professionals were considered for each treatment. The resource and cost input values for the model were obtained from published literature and validated by Canadian clinical experts in active allergy practice. A discount rate of 1.5% was applied. Several scenario analyses were conducted to determine the impact of many of the key base case assumptions on the outcomes. Results Over the total 3-year time horizon, the ragweed SLIT-tablet had a potential cost savings of $900.14 in Ontario and $1023.14 in Quebec when compared with preseasonal ragweed SCIT, of $6613.22 in Ontario and $8750.64 in Quebec when compared with annual ragweed SCIT, and $79.62 in Ontario and $429.49 in Quebec when compared with MRPATA. The ragweed SLIT-tablet had higher drug costs compared with the other AIT options, but lower costs for healthcare professional services. The lower costs for healthcare professional services with the ragweed SLIT-tablet were driven by the need for fewer office visits than SCIT. Scenario analysis indicated that costs were most impacted by including societal costs (e.g., costs associated with patient/caregiver travel and time lost). The potential cost savings of the ragweed SLIT-tablet versus SCIT and MRPATA was maintained in most scenarios. Conclusions In this cost minimization analysis, the ragweed SLIT-tablet provided estimated cost savings from a public payer perspective for the treatment of ragweed ARC in Canadian children compared with SCIT or MRPATA.

Abstract Respiratory viruses are transmitted and acquired via the nasal mucosa, and thereby may influence the nasal metabolome composed of biochemical products produced by both host cells and microbes. Studies of the nasal metabolome demonstrate virus-specific changes that sometimes correlate with viral load and disease severity. Here, we evaluate the nasopharyngeal metabolome of COVID-19 infected individuals and report several small molecules that may be used as potential therapeutic targets. Specimens were tested by qRT-PCR with target primers for three viruses: Influenza A (INFA), respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), and SARS-CoV-2, along with unaffected controls. The nasopharyngeal metabolome was characterized using an LC–MS/MS-based screening kit capable of quantifying 141 analytes. A machine learning model identified 28 discriminating analytes and correctly categorized patients with a viral infection with an accuracy of 96% (R2 = 0.771, Q2 = 0.72). A second model identified 5 analytes to differentiate COVID19-infected patients from those with INFA or RSV with an accuracy of 85% (R2 = 0.442, Q2 = 0.301). Specifically, Lysophosphatidylcholines-a-C18:2 (LysoPCaC18:2) concentration was significantly increased in COVID19 patients (P

Abstract Patients with asthma frequently over rely on short-acting beta-agonists (SABA) to treat acute symptoms. This can adversely impact quality of life and increase the risk of exacerbations. SABA overuse is also associated with an increased risk of mortality. In their 2021 update on the diagnosis and management of mild asthma, the Canadian Thoracic Society (CTS) newly recommended that a combination inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and long-acting beta-agonist, specifically budesonide/formoterol, may be used as-needed (PRN) as an alternative reliever to SABA. The CTS developed an algorithm as a guide for deciding for whom PRN budesonide/formoterol versus PRN SABA is appropriate as a reliever. While the CTS algorithm provides necessary and precise guidance, the somewhat complicated requirements for determining control and exacerbation risk may still end up leaving some patients at-risk of SABA overreliance. This communication simplifies the reliever decision algorithm developed by the CTS for application in daily practice. A 30-s evaluation of 2 simple questions related to reliever use can usually accurately assess if a patient’s asthma is controlled: How many SABA canisters do you use a year AND how many times do you use SABA a week? If the patient indicates use of > 2 SABA canisters per year or > 2 administrations of SABA per week for any reason, the patient does not have controlled asthma and PRN SABA is not an appropriate treatment regimen. Similarly, for patients using PRN ICS/formoterol, more than 2 administrations per week indicates a clinical review and reevaluation of their management, including augmentation. An education process is essential to inform patients, caregivers, and healthcare providers that overuse of any reliever is not acceptable and is potentially harmful.

NMR and MS/MS-based metabolomics of a cyanobacterial extract from Piti Bomb Holes, Guam, indicated the presence of unique enyne-containing halogenated fatty acid amides. We isolated three new compounds of this class, taveuniamides L-N (1–3), along with the previously reported taveuniamide F (4), which was the most abundant analog. The planar structures of the new compounds were established using 1D and 2D NMR as well as mass spectrometry. We established the configuration of this chemical class to be R at C-8 via Mosher’s analysis of 4 after reduction of the carboxamide group. Our biological investigations with 4 revealed that the compound binds to the cannabinoid receptor CNR1, acting as an antagonist/inverse agonist in the canonical G-protein signaling pathways. In selectivity profiling against 168 GPCR targets using the β-arrestin functional assay, we found that 4 antagonizes GPR119, NPSR1b, CCR9, CHRM4, GPR120, HTR2A, and GPR103, in addition to CNR1. Interestingly, 4 showed a 6.8-fold selectivity for CNR1 over CNR2. The binding mode of 4 to CNR1 was investigated using docking and molecular dynamics simulations with both natural and unnatural stereoisomers, revealing important CNR1 residues for the interaction and also providing a possible reasoning for the observed CNR1/CNR2 selectivity.

Background and aims: With an increasing number of Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) addressing primary prevention of food allergy and atopic dermatitis, it is timely to undertake a comprehensive assessment of the quality and consistency of recommendations and evaluation of their implementability in different geographical settings. Methods: We systematically reviewed CPGs from 8 international databases and extensive website searches. Seven reviewers screened records in any language and then used the AGREE II and AGREE REX instruments to critically appraise CPGs published between January 2011 and April 2022. Results: Our search identified 2138 relevant articles, of which 30 CPGs were eventually included. Eight (27%) CPGs were shortlisted based on our predefined quality criteria of achieving scores >70% in the “Scope and Purpose” and “Rigour of Development” domains of the AGREE II instrument. Among the shortlisted CPGs, scores on the “Applicability” domain were generally low, and only 3 CPGs rated highly in the “Implementability” domain of AGREE-REX, suggesting that the majority of CPGs fared poorly on global applicability. Recommendations on maternal diet and complementary feeding in infants were mostly consistent, but recommendations on use of hydrolysed formula and supplements varied considerably. Conclusion: The overall quality of a CPG for Food Allergy and Atopic Dermatitis prevention did not correlate well with its global applicability. It is imperative that CPG developers consider stakeholders’ preferences, local applicability, and adapt existing recommendations to each individual population and healthcare system to ensure successful implementation. There is a need for development of high-quality CPGs for allergy prevention outside of North America and Europe. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021265689.

Abstract Background Post hoc analyses of randomized placebo-controlled trials have demonstrated efficacy and tolerability of the ragweed sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT)-tablet in Canadian adults with ragweed pollen-induced allergic rhinitis/conjunctivitis (AR/C). This post hoc analysis evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of the ragweed SLIT-tablet in the subpopulation of Canadian children and adolescents with AR/C in a previously described randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Methods The trial (NCT02478398) was conducted in North American and European children/adolescents ages 5–17 years with ragweed pollen-induced AR/C with or without asthma (FEV1 ≥ 80% predicted). Participants were randomized to daily ragweed SLIT-tablet (12 Amb a 1-U) or placebo for up to 28 weeks. The primary endpoint was the average total combined score (TCS; sum of rhinoconjunctivitis daily symptom score [DSS] and daily medication score [DMS]) during peak ragweed pollen season (RPS). Key secondary endpoints were TCS during the entire RPS, and DSS and DMS during peak RPS. Post hoc analyses of the primary and key secondary endpoints were conducted in the subpopulation of Canadian participants. Results Of the 1025 randomized participants, 246 (SLIT-tablet, n = 116; placebo, n = 130) were in the Canadian subpopulation. In the total study population, relative TCS (95% CI) improvement with ragweed SLIT-tablet versus placebo was − 38.3% (− 46.0%, − 29.7%; least square [LS] mean difference, − 2.73; P

Abstract Background Sublingual immunotherapy tablets (SLIT-T) are an effective treatment for allergic rhinitis (AR), but some patients experience local allergic reactions (LAR) in the first few weeks of treatment that can lead to treatment discontinuation. Although oral antihistamines are recommended for the treatment and pretreatment of LAR associated with SLIT-T, there are no clinical trial data to support this recommendation. Rupatadine is an H1 antihistamine that also inhibits platelet activating factor activity. The objective of this case series is to describe real-world clinical situations in which rupatadine was used to treat or mitigate SLIT-T–related LAR. Case presentations Five cases are presented by the managing allergist and off-label use of rupatadine is their expert opinion only. Patients in all 5 cases were treated with a SLIT-T (e.g. ragweed, tree, grass, or house dust mites) for the management of allergic rhinitis and experienced bothersome LAR with the first SLIT-T administration. In 3 cases, rupatadine 10 mg was administered for the immediate treatment of LAR (either in-office with the first SLIT-T dose or for subsequent LAR experienced at home) and the symptoms resolved. In 3 cases, pretreatment with other second-generation H1 antihistamines was unable to prevent LAR and the patients discontinued the SLIT-T. In these 3 cases, switching to pretreatment with rupatadine allowed the patients to restart and tolerate SLIT-T treatment with minimal or no LAR. In these patients with an established history of LAR, proactive pretreatment with rupatadine in subsequent seasons or with initiation of a different SLIT-T mitigated the previously experienced LARs. Conclusions In the cases presented, treatment with rupatadine resolved LAR associated with SLIT-T treatment and rupatadine pretreatment appeared to mitigate subsequent LAR. Rupatadine may be an option to treat or improve the tolerability of the SLIT-T, potentially improving early treatment persistence.

Astrocytes have functions crucial for brain homeostasis, which are disrupted in many neurological disorders, but how these functions are established during astrocyte maturation is largely unknown. Here the authors show transcriptional and chromatin changes underlying astrocyte maturation in mice and identify transcription factors regulating maturation of cultured astrocytes.

Abstract Background A cost-minimization analysis (CMA) was performed to evaluate the economic implications of introducing the SQ Tree sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT)-tablets marketed as ITULATEK® (Health Canada regulatory approval in April 2020) for the treatment of pollen-induced (birch, alder and/or hazel) seasonal allergic rhinitis in Canada (Ontario and Quebec), where Tree Pollen subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) is already an available treatment option. Methods A CMA was deemed appropriate and was based on the assumption that the SQ Tree SLIT-tablets have comparable efficacy to Tree Pollen SCIT. A societal perspective was adopted in the model, including relevant costs of medications, costs of health care services, and productivity losses. The time horizon in the model was three years, which corresponds to a minimal treatment course of allergy immunotherapy. Resource use and costs were based on published sources, where available, and validated by Canadian specialist clinicians (allergists) in active practice in Ontario and in Quebec, where applicable. A discount rate of 1.5% was applied in accordance with the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) guidelines. To assess the robustness of the results, scenario analyses were performed by testing alternative assumptions for selected parameters (e.g., Tree Pollen SCIT resource use, discount rates, number of injections, annual SCIT dosing with maintenance injections, and nurse time support), to evaluate their impact on the results of the analysis. Results The direct costs, including the drug costs, and physician services costs, for three years of treatment, were similar for both SQ Tree SLIT-tablets vs. Tree Pollen SCIT in both Ontario and Quebec ($2799.01 and $2838.70 vs. $2233.76 and $2266.05 respectively). However, when the indirect costs (including patient’s travel expenses and lost working hours) are included in the model, total savings for the treatment with SQ Tree SLIT-tablets of $1111.79 for Ontario and $1199.87 for Quebec were observed. Scenario analyses were conducted and showed that changes in assumptions continue to result in the savings of SQ Tree SLIT- tablets over Tree Pollen SCIT. Conclusions The CMA indicates that SQ Tree SLIT-tablets are a cost-minimizing alternative to Tree Pollen SCIT when considered from a societal perspective in Ontario and Quebec.

Abstract Background Safe and effective vaccines provide the first hope for mitigating the devastating health and economic impacts resulting from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and related public health orders. Recent case reports of reactions to COVID-19 vaccines have raised questions about their safety for use in individuals with allergies and those who are immunocompromised. In this document, we aim to address these concerns and provide guidance for allergists/immunologists. Methods Scoping review of the literature regarding COVID-19 vaccination, adverse or allergic reactions, and immunocompromise from PubMed over the term of December 2020 to present date. We filtered our search with the terms “human” and “English” and limited the search to the relevant subject age range with the term “adult.” Reports resulting from these searches and relevant references cited in those reports were reviewed and cited on the basis of their relevance. Results Assessment by an allergist is warranted in any individual with a suspected allergy to a COVID-19 vaccine or any of its components. Assessment by an allergist is NOT required for individuals with a history of unrelated allergies, including to allergies to foods, drugs, insect venom or environmental allergens. COVID-19 vaccines should be offered to immunocompromised patients if the benefit is deemed to outweigh any potential risks of vaccination. Interpretation This review provides the first Canadian guidance regarding assessment of an adolescent and adult with a suspected allergy to one of the COVID-19 vaccines currently available, or any of their known allergenic components, and for patients who are immunocompromised who require vaccination for COVID-19. As information is updated this guidance will be updated accordingly.

Abstract Rationale The Environmental Exposure Unit (EEU), a controlled allergen exposure model of allergic rhinitis (AR), has traditionally utilized seasonal allergens. We sought to clinically validate the use of house dust mite (HDM), a perennial allergen, in the HDM-EEU, a specially designed facility within the larger EEU. Methods Forty-four HDM-allergic and eleven non-allergic participants were screened and deemed eligible for one of two 3-h exposure sessions in the HDM-EEU. Participants were exposed to a modest or higher HDM target, with blood and nasal brushing samples collected before and after allergen exposure. Symptomatic data, including Total Nasal Symptom Score (TNSS), Total Ocular Symptom Score (TOSS), Total Rhinoconjunctivitis Symptom Score (TRSS), and Peak Nasal Inspiratory Flow (PNIF) were collected at baseline, every 30 min until 3 h, on an hourly basis for up to 12 h, and at 24 h following the onset of HDM exposure. Results The modest and higher HDM target sessions respectively featured cumulative total particle counts of 156,784 and 266,694 particles (2.5–25 µm), Der f 1 concentrations of 2.67 ng/m3 and 3.80 ng/m3, and Der p 1 concentrations of 2.07 ng/m3 and 6.66 ng/m3. Allergic participants experienced an increase in symptoms, with modest target participants plateauing at 1.5 to 2 h and achieving a mean peak TNSS of 5.74 ± 0.65, mean peak TOSS of 2.47 ± 0.56, and mean peak TRSS of 9.16 ± 1.32. High HDM-target allergics reached a mean peak TNSS of 8.17 ± 0.71, mean peak TOSS of 4.46 ± 0.62, and mean peak TRSS of 14.08 ± 1.30 at 3 h. All allergic participants’ symptoms decreased but remained higher than baseline after exiting the HDM-EEU. Sixteen participants (37.2%) were classified as Early Phase Responders (EPR), eleven (25.6%) as protracted EPR (pEPR), seven (16.3%) as Dual Phase Responders (DPR), and nine (20.9%) as Poor Responders (PR). Allergic participants experienced significant percent PNIF reductions at hours 2 and 3 compared to healthy controls. Non-allergics were asymptomatic during the study period. Conclusions The HDM-EEU is an appropriate model to study HDM-induced AR as it can generate clinically relevant AR symptoms amongst HDM-allergic individuals.

Abstract The vast majority of individuals labelled as allergic are not deemed truly allergic upon appropriate assessment by an allergist. A label of beta-lactam allergy carries important risks for individual and public health. This article provides an overview of beta-lactam allergy, implications of erroneous beta-lactam allergy labels and the impact that can be provided by structured allergy assessment. We provide recommendations on how to stratify risk of beta-lactam allergy, beta lactam challenge protocols as well as management of patients at high risk of beta-lactam allergy.

Abstract Background Allergic rhinitis (AR) is an inflammatory disease of the nasal mucosa impacting up to 25% of Canadians. The standard of care for AR includes a treatment plan that takes into account patient preferences, the severity of the disease, and most essentially involves a shared decision-making process between patient and provider. Body Since their introduction in the 1940s, antihistamines (AHs) have been the most utilized class of medications for the treatment of AR. First-generation AHs are associated with adverse central nervous system (CNS) and anticholinergic side effects. On the market in the 1980s, newer generation AHs have improved safety and efficacy. Compared to antihistamines, intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) have significantly greater efficacy but longer onset of action. Intranasal AH and INCS combinations offer a single medication option that offers broader disease coverage and faster symptom control. However, cost and twice-per-day dosing remain a major limitation. Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is the only disease-modifying option and can be provided through subcutaneous (SCIT) or sublingual (SLIT) routes. While SCIT has been the definitive management option for many years, SLIT tablets (SLIT-T) have also been proven to be safe and efficacious. Conclusion There is a range of available treatment options for AR that reflect the varying disease length and severity. For mild to moderate AR, newer generation AHs should be the first-line treatment, while INCS are mainstay treatments for moderate to severe AR. In patients who do not respond to INCS, a combination of intranasal AH/INCS (AZE/FP) should be considered, assuming that cost is not a limiting factor. While SCIT remains the option with the most available allergens that can be targeted, it has the potential for severe systemic adverse effects and requires weekly visits for administration during the first 4 to 6 months. SLIT-T is a newer approach that provides the ease of being self-administered and presents a reduced risk for systemic reactions. In any case, standard care for AR includes a treatment plan that takes into account disease severity and patient preferences.

Abstract Environmental DNA analysis has revolutionized the way we study rare, invasive, and endangered taxa. However, if eDNA testing is to become an increasingly reliable tool, high detection sensitivity is crucial. Current eDNA sampling methods, like filtration and precipitation, can only process small volumes of water per sample. If only a few samples are collected, eDNA from the target organism might be missed, leading to false‐negative results. We developed an eDNA collection method for lentic systems that improved detection sensitivity while keeping the total number of samples low. Unlike filtration and precipitation, which mainly target extracellular DNA, this method specifically targets eDNA in larger particle sizes and is not limited to processing small volumes of water. A 64‐micrometer mesh tow net was used to process >3,000 L of water per eDNA sample. We compared the tow net method to a common collection method, a 0.45 μm cellulose nitrate filter that processes about 1 L of water per eDNA sample. Paired tow and filter samples were collected at 37 locations and tested for two taxa: an aquatic plant, Northern watermilfoil (Myriophyllum sibiricum), and aquatic mollusks, including Helisoma anceps, using Kompetitive Allele Specific PCR (KASP) assays. We detected M. sibiricum significantly more frequently in tow samples than filter samples. Mollusks were detected in all eDNA samples (tow nets and filters), but when eDNA samples were diluted 25‐fold to mimic a low target concentration scenario, mollusk DNA was detected significantly more frequently in tow samples than filter samples. This high‐volume eDNA sampling method, using a tow net to process thousands of liters of water, can improve detection sensitivity for multiple taxa, making it a useful tool for researchers and managers.

PURPOSELow health literacy is a leading cause of treatment abandonment among patients receiving cancer care at Kamuzu Central Hospital (KCH) in Malawi.METHODSWe developed cancer educational videos featuring Malawian providers and played them in the KCH oncology clinic. The videos addressed cancer-related topics, including disease biology, common myths, diagnostic procedures, treatment, side effects, and survivorship. After 6 months of implementation, we compared results from 50 pre- and postintervention surveys to assess change in cancer knowledge and care experience.RESULTSBoth pre- and postintervention cancer knowledge were good: a median of nine questions were answered correctly of 11 in both assessments. Despite the intervention, most continued to incorrectly identify cancer as an infection (pre: n = 26, 52%; post: n = 25, 50%; P = 1.0), although improvements were observed in patients' knowledge of correct actions for fever at home (pre: n = 38, 76%; post: n = 43, 86%; P = .31). Care experiences were overall good. Postintervention results indicate that more patients felt always listened to by their providers (pre: n = 18, 36%; post: n = 29, 58%; P < .01). However, we also noted a higher rate of patient dissatisfaction of care as more patients felt that they could not understand chemotherapy counseling (pre: n = 11, 22%; post: n = 22, 44%; P < .01). Assessments of video satisfaction indicate that patients found the videos very helpful in terms of understanding their disease (n = 47, 96%) and side effects (n = 48, 98%) and felt empowered to speak up with their providers (n = 46, 96%).CONCLUSIONStandardized education materials for patients that can be feasibly implemented throughout sub-Saharan Africa are urgently needed. Cancer educational videos are a low-cost way to educate and empower patients with cancer in resource-constrained settings although in-person discussions remain a crucial part of care.

The prevalence of cat allergen-induced AR is increasing worldwide, prompting its study using controlled methodology. Three general categories of allergen exposure models currently exist for the study of cat allergen-induced AR: natural exposure cat rooms, allergen exposure chambers (AEC), and nasal allergen challenges (NAC). We evaluated existing literature surrounding the use of these models to study cat allergen induced AR using online research databases, including OVID Medline, Embase, and Web of Science. We report that natural exposure cat rooms have been important in establishing the foundation for our understanding of cat allergen-induced AR. Major limitations, including variable allergen ranges and differing study designs highlight the need for a more standardized protocol. In comparison, AECs are an exceptional model to mimic real-world allergen exposure and study long-term implications of AR with large sample sizes. Existing AECs are limited by heterogeneous facility designs, differing methods of cat allergen distribution, and issues surrounding cost and accessibility. Conversely, NACs allow for smaller participant cohorts for easier biological sampling and are ideal for phase I, phase 2 or proof-of-concept studies. NACs generally have a standardized protocol and are less expensive compared to AECs. Nevertheless, NACs solely capture acute allergen exposure and have the further limitation of using allergen extracts rather than natural allergen. As the use of combined controlled methodologies is sparse, we recommend concurrent use of AECs and NACs to study short- and long-term effects of AR, thereby providing a more holistic representation of cat allergen-induced AR.

Introduction: Allergic rhinitis (AR) is an inflammatory disease of the nasal mucosa that can be modeled using Controlled Allergen Exposure Facilities (CACF). Recently, we clinically validated the house dust mite (HDM) Environmental Exposure Unit (EEU) facility. In the current study, we aimed to assess biological responses in the blood following HDM exposure in the HDM-EEU.Methods: Fifty-five participants passed a screening visit, where they provided consent and completed a skin prick test (SPT), then attended a modest or higher HDM exposure session. Baseline and post-exposure blood samples were collected. Complete blood counts with differentials were measured, and isolated serum was used to determine Dermatophagoides farinae- and Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus-specific IgE (sIgE) and cytokine concentrations (IL-4, IL-5, IL-6, IL-10, IL-13, TNF-α).Results: HDM-allergic participants had significantly greater SPT wheal sizes than healthy controls. sIgE concentrations were significantly greater in allergic participants, with a strong correlation between Dermatophagoides farinae and Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus. Serum eosinophil counts were significantly decreased post-exposure for allergic participants. White blood cell, neutrophil, and lymphocyte counts were significantly increased for both allergic and non-allergic participants post-exposure. Serum IL-13 concentrations were significantly reduced post-exposure in allergics while TNF-α was significantly reduced in non-allergics.Conclusion: The HDM-EEU is a useful model for investigating biologic mechanisms of HDM-induced AR. Allergic participants produced measurable biological changes compared to healthy controls following allergen exposure, specifically with serum expression of eosinophils and related markers, namely IL-5, which promotes the proliferation and differentiation of eosinophils, and IL-13, a cytokine released by eosinophils. The exact mechanisms at play require further investigation.