Search

Excipients are necessary as a support to the active ingredients in drugs, vaccines and other products and they contribute to their stability, preservation, pharmacokinetics, bioavailability, appearance and acceptability. For both drugs and vaccines these are rare reactions however for vaccines they are the primary cause of immediate hypersensitivity. Suspicion for these “hidden dangers” should be high in particular when anaphylaxis has occurred in association with multiple chemically distinct drugs. Common excipients implicated include gelatin, carboxymethylcellulose (CMC), polyethylene glycols (PEG) and products related to PEG in immediate hypersensitivity reactions (IHRs); and propylene glycol (PG), in delayed hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs). Complete evaluation of a suspected excipient reaction requires detailed information from the product monograph and package insert to identify all ingredients that are present and to understand the function and structure for these chemicals. This knowledge helps develop a management plan that may include allergy testing to identify the implicated component and to give patients detailed information for future avoidance of relevant foods, drugs and vaccines. Excipient reactions should be particularly considered for specific classes of drugs where they have been commonly found to be the culprit (e.g. corticosteroids, injectable hormones, immunotherapies, monoclonal antibodies, and vaccines). We provide a review of the evidence-based literature outlining epidemiology and mechanisms of excipient reactions and provide strategies for heightened recognition and allergy testing.

The process of admitting patients from the emergency department to the general medicine floor is foundational to the medical training process and medical practice more generally. Yet this process is rife with potential error if not approached systematically, and residents rarely receive explicit teaching in this area. The creation of an "Admission Checklist" proposed by the authors could serve the function of reducing error and enhancing inter-provider communication throughout this process. Such a checklist could improve trainee experience and education, and ultimately allow for improved outcomes for patients during transitions of care.

This Patient Page describes the symptoms, diagnosis, and treatment of drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms.

Teaching rounds have been completed, essential orders and consults have been placed and your pager has been turned in at the threshold of the morning report conference room. With an hour of respite from the wards, you will take part in the time-honoured tradition of morning report. You pour yourself a cup of coffee and strategically select a seat which might prevent you from being called upon. While you enjoy the social aspect of morning report, the prospect of being asked to lead a case causes anxiety and leads to a familiar but still uncomfortable sense of imposter syndrome. As you settle in and seek to avoid eye contact with the chief resident, you sense him/her scanning the room for a willing participant. Despite your best efforts for avoidance, you hear your name called and immediately feel a pit in your stomach as you sense all the eyes in the room settle on you. The above experience is an eminently relatable one for medical trainees. While this familiar sense of anxiety partially stems from the prospect of being asked to share one’s thinking aloud among peers and superiors, it is also likely the case that the lack of a systematic, tried-and-true approach to leading such case discussions contributes significantly to this discomfort. It is curious that while much has been written on the topic of morning report—its anxiety-inducing ills as ‘morning distort’ and best practices for faculty and chief resident facilitators—none have attempted to provide a systematic approach to serving as a discussant for a case.1 2 Offering such an approach certainly would serve to help mitigate trainee anxiety at the prospect of being called upon, but more importantly might offer a framework to think systematically and comprehensively about patients one cares for in the future. To this end, …

Background Drug-induced anaphylaxis is a well-known adverse drug reaction for some drug classes, but emerging drug causes of anaphylaxis and novel mechanisms may contribute in unrecognized ways. Objective We sought to determine the top drugs reported in association with anaphylaxis and anaphylaxis followed by death in the Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS). Methods We reviewed the publicly available FAERS database from 1999 to 2019. Using search terms "anaphylactic shock" or "anaphylactic reaction" and sorting cases by generic drug names, we counted and trended reports to FAERS in which a drug was associated with anaphylaxis or anaphylaxis followed by death. Results From 1999 to 2019, there were 17,506,002 adverse drug events reported in FAERS, of which 47,496 (0.27%) were reported as anaphylaxis. Excluding patients without age, sex, or country data, respectively, the median age of patients in reports of anaphylaxis was 52 (interquartile range: 28), 62.71% were female, and 13,899 of 34,381 (40.43%) reports were from the United States. There were 2984 of 47,496 (6.28%) reports of anaphylaxis followed by death. Top drug classes associated with anaphylaxis in FAERS were antibiotics, monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and acetaminophen. Top drug classes associated with anaphylaxis deaths were antibiotics, radiocontrast agents, and intraoperative agents. Linear regression demonstrated reports of anaphylaxis to mAbs increasing at an average rate of 0.77% of total anaphylaxis reports per year (95% confidence interval: 0.65, 0.88) from 2.00% in 1999 to 17.37% in 2019, faster than any other drug class. Conclusion Antibiotics were highly reported for anaphylaxis overall and anaphylaxis followed by death. Increasing reports were noted for anaphylaxis to mAb therapies.

Clinical Implications • For patients who report fluoroquinolone allergy, we suggest that specific restrictive intradermal skin test criteria are useful to identify those with true anaphylaxis as well as those in whom drug challenge can be safely applied.

IMPORTANCE: Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 is a highly effective strategy to prevent infection and severe COVID-19 outcomes. The best strategy for a second dose of vaccine among persons who had an immediate allergic reaction to their first SARS CoV-2 vaccination is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To assess the risk of severe immediate allergic reactions (eg, anaphylaxis) to a second dose of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine among persons with immediate allergic reactions to their first vaccine dose. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and the World Health Organization Global Coronavirus database were searched from inception through October 4, 2021. STUDY SELECTION: Included studies addressed immediate allergic reactions of any severity to a second SARS-CoV-2 vaccine dose in persons with a known or suspected immediate allergic reaction (4 hours after vaccination) were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Paired reviewers independently selected studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Random-effects models were used for meta-analysis. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach evaluated certainty of the evidence. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Risk of severe immediate allergic reaction and repeated severe immediate allergic reactions with a second vaccine dose. Reaction severity was defined by the reporting investigator, using Brighton Collaboration Criteria, Ring and Messmer criteria, World Allergy Organization criteria, or National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases criteria. RESULTS: Among 22 studies of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines, 1366 individuals (87.8% women; mean age, 46.1 years) had immediate allergic reactions to their first vaccination. Analysis using the pooled random-effects model found that 6 patients developed severe immediate allergic reactions after their second vaccination (absolute risk, 0.16% [95% CI, 0.01%-2.94%]), 232 developed mild symptoms (13.65% [95% CI, 7.76%-22.9%]), and, conversely, 1360 tolerated the dose (99.84% [95% CI, 97.09%-99.99%]). Among 78 persons with severe immediate allergic reactions to their first SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination, 4 people (4.94% [95% CI, 0.93%-22.28%]) had a second severe immediate reaction, and 15 had nonsevere symptoms (9.54% [95% CI, 2.18%-33.34%]). There were no deaths. Graded vaccine dosing, skin testing, and premedication as risk-stratification strategies did not alter the findings. Certainty of evidence was moderate for those with any allergic reaction to the first dose and low for those with severe allergic reactions to the first dose. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this systematic review and meta-analysis of case studies and case reports, the risk of immediate allergic reactions and severe immediate reactions or anaphylaxis associated with a second dose of an SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine was low among persons who experienced an immediate allergic reaction to their first dose. These findings suggest that revaccination of individuals with an immediate allergic reaction to a first SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine dose in a supervised setting equipped to manage severe allergic reactions can be safe.

This case series study examines the safety of second doses of messenger RNA COVID-19 vaccines after first-dose allergic reactions.

Background The most common immediate hypersensitivity to macrogols is associated with polyethylene glycol (PEG) 3350; however, the epidemiology, mechanisms, and cross-reactivity are poorly understood. Thousands of medications contain either PEGs or structurally similar polysorbates. Objective Our objective was to better understand the mechanism, cross-reactivity, and scope of PEG hypersensitivity. Methods Two cases with a past history of immediate hypersensitivity to PEG-containing medications were used to study potential mechanisms and cross-reactivity of immediate reactions to PEG 3350. Skin testing and oral challenges with PEG and polysorbate-containing agents were employed to determine clinical reactivity and cross-reactivity between the 2 allergens. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and electrochemiluminescent immunoassay were used to detect anti-PEG specific IgG and IgE, respectively, using PEGylated protein or PEG alone as antigens in 2 cases and 6 PEG 3350 tolerant controls. We searched US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) adverse event reports for immediate reactions to PEG 3350 to determine the potential scope of this problem in the United States. Results Skin and provocation testing demonstrated symptomatic reactivity in both cases to PEG 3350 and polysorbate 80. Plasma samples were positive for anti-PEG specific IgE and IgG antibodies only in cases and binding increased directly proportional to the molecular weight of PEG tested. FDA adverse event reports revealed 53 additional cases of possible PEG 3350 anaphylaxis. Conclusions Immediate hypersensitivity to PEG 3350 with cross-reactive polysorbate 80 hypersensitivity may be underrecognized in clinical practice and can be detected with clinical skin testing. Our studies raise the possibility of an IgE-mediated type I hypersensitivity mechanism in some cases.