Search

The purpose of this literature review was to review the latest advancements with biologics in rapid drug desensitization. Our methodology was to highlight both desensitization to biologics themselves and the use of biologics in desensitization to both biologic and nonbiologic drugs.Biologics are a vast category of drugs that include monoclonal antibodies, nanobodies, modern vaccinations, and even hormones. Desensitization to biologics can be safely performed through standardized procedure. Biomarkers are used both in vitro and in vivo to help identify and classify hypersensitivity reactions. Hypersensitivity reactions to the mRNA vaccinations against SARS-CoV-2 present their own unique challenges to management. There are specific excipients in monoclonal antibodies that are thought to be responsible for many of their hypersensitivity reactions. Certain biologics can even be used to assist in desensitization to other drugs. Rapid drug desensitization is a standardized procedure that may be able to help many patients who have experienced hypersensitivity reactions to biologics and would best be treated with them to continue to receive them. Biologic drugs have opened a new era in medicine for the prevention and treatment of infectious diseases, cancer, and inflammatory diseases. Hypersensitivity reactions to biologics are quite common. This literature review presents the latest advancements in our understanding of hypersensitivity reactions to biologics, how rapid drug desensitization can be used to continue therapy despite history of hypersensitivity, and how biologics themselves can be used to aid in desensitization itself.

Mast cell activation (MCA) is common and occurs in a number of pathologic conditions, including IgE-dependent and independent allergic reactions, atopic disorders, autoimmune processes, and mastocytosis. In a subset of patients, no underlying disease and no known trigger of MCA are found. When the symptoms are severe, systemic, and recurrent, and accompanied by a diagnostic increase in the serum tryptase level or other mast cell mediators, an MCA syndrome (MCAS) may be diagnosed. In these patients, the symptoms typically respond to drugs suppressing MCA, mediator production in mast cells, or mediator effects. In each case, diagnostic consensus criteria must be fulfilled to diagnose MCAS. In other patients, MCA may be local, less severe, or less acute, or may be suspected but not confirmed, so that the diagnostic criteria of MCAS are not fulfilled. In these patients, it may be difficult to prove MCA, for example, by measuring multiple mast cell mediators or basophil activation, the latter as a surrogate of IgE-dependent hypersensitivity. However, validated diagnostic criteria for implicating suspected MCA behind such conditions are lacking, even if some of these conditions have recently been assigned to an International Classification of Diseases-10-Clinical Modification code (ICD-10-CM). In this article, we discuss diagnostic features and criteria and propose a ICD-10-CM–adjusted classification for disorders associated with MCA, herein referred to as MCA disorders (MCADs), with special emphasis on the delineation between confirmed MCAS, MCAD not fulfilling MCAS criteria, and suspected MCAD that is not present. In addition, we discuss the discrimination between overt MCAD and predisposing conditions, such as atopic states, mastocytosis, and hereditary alpha tryptasemia., T.G. was supported by grants from the Konsul TH C Bergh Foundation and the Stockholm County Council Research Funds (ALF), Sweden. M.C.C., J.J.L, and D.D.M. were supported by the Division of Intramural Research, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health (NIH). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not represent the official views of the NIH. P.V. was supported by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF; projects P32470-B and F4704-B20).

Patients with systemic mastocytosis often have symptoms of mast cell activation, which is associated with elevated levels of urinary mast cell mediator metabolites. Patients with hereditary α-tryptasemia (HαT) may present with symptoms of mast cell activation. Whether levels of mast cell mediators are elevated in this patient population is not known.The purpose of this study was to determine whether patients with HαT and symptoms of mast cell activation have elevated levels of urinary mediators and compare the levels with those in patients with systemic mastocytosis.We retrospectively analyzed mast cell mediators in 63 patients with a confirmed diagnosis of HαT, 20 patients with a confirmed diagnosis of indolent systemic mastocytosis (ISM), and 23 healthy controls. All patients were referred to the Brigham and Women's Hospital Mastocytosis Center or the Mayo Clinic for evaluation of mast cell activation disorders.Our population was predominantly female (85.7%) with an average age of 53.8 years. The average baseline serum tryptase level was significantly higher in patients with ISM than in those with HαT (65.9 vs 19.3 ng/mL [P lt; .01]). When compared with patients with HαT, those with ISM had statistically significant increases in their levels of urinary N-methylhistamine (P lt; .01) and 2,3-dinor-11β-prostaglandin F2α (P lt; .05).Patients with symptomatic HαT do not have elevations of mast cell urinary metabolites, suggesting that granule- and membrane-derived mediators may not drive symptoms in HαT.

Instituto de Investigacion Marques de Valdecilla-IDIVAL (Santander, Spain), Official Doctoral Program in Biomedicine of the University of Granada, Plan Estatal de Investigaci´on Cient´ıfica y T´ecnica y de Innovaci´on 2013 2016, ISCIII-Subdirecci´on General de Evaluaci´on y Fomento de la Investigaci´on, Ministerio de Econom´ıa y Competitividad, Spain (Grants PI16/01642 and PI10/01096), Plan Propio de la Universidad de Granada, Spain 2014 (Grant PP2014.01)

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.

Advanced systemic mastocytosis (AdvSM) is characterized by the presence of KIT D816V and other somatic mutations (eg, in SRSF2, ASXL1, and RUNX1) in 95% and 60% to 70% of patients, respectively. The biological and clinical consequences of AdvSM include multilineage involvement (eg, associated hematologic neoplasm) in 60% to 80% of patients, variable infiltration and damage (C-findings) of predominantly bone marrow and visceral organs through affected mast cell (MC) and non-MC lineages, and elevated levels of serum tryptase. Recently, the treatment landscape has substantially changed with the introduction of the multikinase/KIT inhibitor midostaurin and the selective KIT D816V inhibitor avapritinib. In this review, we discuss the evolution of AdvSM response criteria that have been developed to better capture clinical benefit (eg, improved responses and progression-free and overall survival). We propose refined response criteria from European Competence Network on Mastocytosis and American Initiative in Mast Cell Diseases investigators that use a tiered approach to segregate the effects of histopathologic (eg, bone marrow MC burden, tryptase), molecular (eg, KIT D816V variant allele frequency), clinical (eg, C-findings), and symptom response on long-term outcomes. These response criteria require evaluation in future prospective clinical trials of selective KIT inhibitors and other novel agents., J. Gotlib expresses gratitude to the Charles and Ann Johnson Foundation and the Stanford Cancer Institute Clinical Innovation Fund for their support of mastocytosis research at Stanford. J. Schwaab, J. Lübke, and A. Reiter were supported by Deutsche José Carreras Leukämie-Stiftung Grant No. DJCLS 08R/2020. M.C. Carter, J.J. Lyons, and D.D. Metcalfe are supported by federal funds from the Division of Intramural Research of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National

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.

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.

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.