Search

Background: The understanding of risk factors related to severe anaphylaxis is key to implementing prevention strategies. We present the first French population-based nine-year anaphylaxis hospitalization study evaluating specific trends and factors related to severe anaphylaxis (SA), to support identification of phenotypes at-risk. Methods: This study used descriptive data from the French hospitalization database for the years 2012–2021, and included all patients hospitalized with anaphylaxis using International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10 codes listed as a primary diagnosis. SA were cases that either required a hospitalization in intensive care units or resulted in death. Potential risk factors were identified according to corresponding ICD codes, available as secondary data during the patient's hospitalization. Results: The average hospitalization rate of all cases of anaphylaxis (SA and non-SA) was 1.34/100,000/year, and rate of admissions for SA was 0.08/100,000/year. Among the 5463 SA, 37.7% had unspecified coding label, when trigger was not identified. For SA cases in which trigger was identified, most were related to drugs (45.6%), followed by food (9.3%) and insect sting (7.2%). Overall, admissions due to anaphylaxis (SA and non-SA) were more frequent in males (57%). However, when the trigger was drugs, the proportion was significantly higher in females. For children aged 5–9 years, the most common trigger for SA was food. Patients for which SA was triggered by insect stings were identified exclusively in the 10–14 years age group. Chronic spontaneous urticaria was associated with insect sting-induced anaphylaxis, regardless of the severity. Angioedema was associated with all causes of SA. Cases of anaphylaxis presenting with urticaria and angioedema included cases with identified and unidentified triggers. Asthma and a personal history of allergy were associated with drug- and food-induced anaphylaxis. Conclusion: This is the first study to provide data on severe phenotypes of anaphylaxis in France. Data presented is key to the implementation of public health actions and preventive strategies to improve quality care.

In 2010, the United States Human and Health Services (US HHS) and the European Union's (EU) Directorate General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology signed a memorandum of understanding to stimulate cooperation surrounding health-related information communications technology. The key project that emerged from this agreement is the International Patient Summary (IPS), intended to provide succinct clinically relevant patient summaries, which are generalizable and condition-independent, that can be readily used by all clinicians for the care of patients. Although allergies are included in the main information required by the IPS library and framework, it is misrepresented which leads to underdiagnosis or misdiagnosis of patients suffering from allergic and hypersensitivity conditions (A/H). The French and Montpellier World Health Organization (WHO) Collaborating Centres have provided arguments for supporting representation of A/H in the IPS. These are based on the relevance of the new classification of A/H in the WHO International Classification of Diseases 11th version (ICD-11), and the need for alignment of eHealth tools with harmonized health information. We first present the A/H in the IPS initiative with the mission of producing an international information system that can be used globally in electronic health records to standardize clinical diagnoses and facilitate communication between clinicians caring for patients with A/H diseases. It is believed this initiative will provide a strong voice for the allergy community and an effective process for improving the quality of health data that will optimize medical care for our patients worldwide.

Background: The 300IR house dust mite (HDM) sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) tablet is approved for treatment of HDM-induced allergic rhinitis (AR). To provide a comprehensive review of the 300IR HDM-SLIT tablet safety profile based on randomized controlled trial (RCT) pooled data and post-marketing (PM) pharmacovigilance data. Methods: Subjects (5–65 years) with confirmed HDM-AR with or without controlled asthma were treated with 300IR or placebo in 8 RCTs. Reported treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were pooled and analyzed descriptively in subsets of adults/adolescents and children. Adverse reactions (ADRs) collected from spontaneous reporting and PM studies through a pharmacovigilance system since the first marketing authorization were also analyzed. Results: Across RCTs, 1853 subjects were treated with the 300IR HDM-SLIT tablet and 1846 with placebo. In both subsets of adults/adolescents and children whichever their asthma status, treatment-related TEAEs of higher incidence in active groups vs placebo were mostly consistent with mild or moderate local application-site reactions. They were mainly reported on the first days of treatment and decreased over time. 4 severe laryngopharyngeal reactions (2 requiring adrenaline/epinephrine) and 1 moderate eczema considered serious rapidly resolved with medications; no anaphylaxis was reported. In PM settings, ADRs reported in more than 235,000 patients were in line with RCT findings. Severe systemic reactions occurred rarely; 12 anaphylactic reactions resolved safely (5 with adrenaline). No new safety signal was raised. Conclusion: Safety data from RCTs and more than 7 years of real-life experience confirmed the favorable safety profile of 300IR HDM-SLIT tablet in patients across different regions, regardless of age and asthma status. Clinical trial registrations: NCT00674700; Retrospectively registered 06 May 2008.NCT01199133; Retrospectively registered 09 September 2010.NCT01527188; Retrospectively registered 01 February 2012.NCT02443805; Registered 29 April 2015/EudraCT 2014-004223-46; Registered 16 September 2015.jRCT2080221872/JapicCTI-121917; Registered 01 August 2012.jRCT2080222929/JapicCTI-15298; Registered 04 August 2015.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic brought unprecedented global disruption to both healthcare providers and patients with respiratory allergies. There are limited real-life data on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the risk perception of patients with allergy treated with allergen immunotherapy (AIT). Objective: To understand the risk perception of allergic patients treated with sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) before and during the pandemic, and their attitudes towards COVID-19 infection and vaccination. Methods: This was a non-interventional, cross-sectional survey conducted from October to November 2021 in France. Adult patients, who had been prescribed and had received a Stallergenes SLIT (liquid or liquid and tablets) before the pandemic (from August 1, 2018 to March 10, 2020) and during the pandemic (from March 11, 2020 to August 31, 2021), were identified from the Stallergenes named-patient products (NPP) database. Patients completed an online questionnaire. Data were analyzed descriptively. Results: A total of 5258 patients from all over France completed the questionnaire. Mean (±SD) age of the respondents was 39.3 (±13.0) years and 66.9% were female. Some of them (11.8%) were obese (BMI >30 kg/m2). Main allergic diseases were rhinitis (80.0% of patients) with or without conjunctivitis, and asthma (39.0%). More than half of the patients experienced moderate to severe (58.0%) and persistent allergic rhinitis profile (70.4%). Most patients were poly-allergic (72.7%), mostly to house dust mites (61.9%), grass pollens (61.5%), tree pollens (57.8%), and cat dander (37.2%). Only 14.1% of patients experienced an aggravation of their allergy symptoms during lockdown and 14.8% were infected with COVID-19, with hospitalization required for 1.8%. Only 3.1% of patients reported their SLIT initiation as being postponed due to the pandemic. SLIT was changed, temporarily interrupted or permanently discontinued during the pandemic in 21.9% of patients. Changes mainly concerned the maintenance dose for SLIT-liquid (63.2%). SLIT modification was due to COVID-19 infection in only 4.2%. Most patients did not feel vulnerable (53.1%), anxious (55.2%), at risk to present severe symptoms of COVID-19 (77.1%), or at risk to transmit coronavirus (80.4%). However, greater anxiety was reported in patients with allergic asthma (33.6%) or other respiratory disorders (50.4%). Patients who felt vulnerable partly assigned their vulnerability to their allergic disease (59.3%). Suffering from an allergic disease did not make patients feel more vulnerable to side effects of COVID-19 vaccine for 79.6% of them. Conclusion: Overall, most patients with allergy and under SLIT were not strongly concerned by the COVID-19 infection. SLIT did not have a negative impact on the COVID-19 symptoms.

Background: House dust mite (HDM)-induced allergic rhinitis (AR) is a major cause of allergic respiratory disease. The efficacy and safety of the 300 IR HDM sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) tablet in patients with moderate-to-severe HDM-AR was confirmed in a large, international, phase 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Here, we analyzed the results in the European population. Methods: Data from 91 European centers that participated in the international, double-blind, RCT (EudraCT 2014-004223-46, NCT02443805) with the 300 IR HDM SLIT tablet versus placebo over 12 months were analyzed post hoc. The treatment effect in European adults and adolescents was notably assessed through the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI)-recommended combined symptom and medication score (CSMS0-6, pre-defined endpoint) and the total combined rhinitis score (TCRS0-24, post hoc endpoint, also balanced) during the primary evaluation period (4 weeks at the end of treatment period) using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Results: There were 818 patients who comprised the modified full analysis set in Europe. Over the primary period, the differences in CSMS0-6 and TCRS0-24 between the 300 IR and placebo groups were statistically significant (p

Background: There is no description of the drivers of prescription for allergen immunotherapy (AIT) for respiratory allergic diseases. Methods: A prospective, multicentre, observational, non-interventional real-life study was performed in France and Spain for 20 months. Data were gathered using 2 different questionnaires, anonymously collected in an online platform. No names of AIT products were recorded. Multivariate analysis and unsupervised cluster analysis were performed. Results: One hundred and three physicians (50.5% from Spain and 49.5% from France) reported 1735 patients (433 in France and 1302 in Spain), 47.9% males, 64.8% adults with a mean age 26.2 years old. They suffered from allergic rhinitis (99%), allergic conjunctivitis (70.4%), allergic asthma (51.8%), atopic dermatitis (13.9%), and food allergy (9.9%). A clustering analysis based on 13 predefined relevant variables for AIT-prescription identified 5 different clusters, each of them including information regarding doctor's profile and patient demographics, baseline disease characteristics, and main AIT indication: 1) Looking at the future: focusing on asthma prevention (n = 355), 2) Efficacy after discontinuation of AIT (n = 293), 3) Fighting severe allergic disease (n = 322), 4) Looking at the present, facing current symptoms (n = 265) and 5) Doctor's own clinical experience (n = 500). Each one of these clusters have specific patients' and doctors' characteristics, representing distinctive AIT prescription drivers. Conclusion: Using data-driven analysis, we identified for the first time some reasons and patterns of AIT prescriptions in real-life clinical settings. There is no uniform indication for prescribing AIT, which varies amongst patients and doctors with multiple but specific drivers, taking into account several relevant parameters.

Background: Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is today the only etiological therapy for respiratory allergic diseases, including allergic rhinitis, allergic conjunctivitis, and allergic asthma. Even though interest in real-world data has recently increased, publications mainly focus on short-term and long-term efficacy and safety of AIT. Indeed, information is still lacking regarding the “key parameters” or “drivers of prescription” used by doctors to prescribe AIT or by the patients to accept AIT as treatment for their respiratory allergic disease. Examining these factors is therefore the main goal of the CHOICE-Global Survey: “Criteria Used by Health Professionals on the Selection of Allergen Immunotherapy in Real Clinical Practice: An international academic electronic survey”. Methods: We present the methodology of the CHOICE-Global Survey, an academic, prospective, multicenter, observational, transversal, web-based e-survey, conducted in real-life clinical settings designed to collect data from 31 countries representing 9 global different socio-economic and demographic regions. In the present document, we describe the survey, how it was conceived and developed, how data are stored and analyzed, and the different steps that will provide this information to the allergy community. Conclusions: The CHOICE-Global Survey will be able to provide, from an academic point of view, information on the drivers of prescription of AIT in real-life practice and improve understanding regarding the key parameters considered by doctors and patients for such therapy.

Background: Drug hypersensitivity reaction (DHR) to iodinated radiocontrast media (iRCM) is reported in 1%–3% of injections. Risk assessment of patients with suspicion of DHR to iRCM relies solely on clinical phenotyping and drug allergy workup. Using a novel unsupervised TwoStep cluster analysis, we aimed to identify prototypic patterns within a large cohort of patients evaluated for a potential iRCM DHR. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted using data from the Drug Allergy and Hypersensitivity Database of the Allergy Unit, University Hospital of Montpellier, Montpellier, France. All referred patients during February 2001 to December 2019 with suspicion of iRCM DHR with either confirmed positive or confirmed negative skin tests were included in the analysis. Results: A total of 1439 patients were evaluated. The chronology of the index reaction was immediate and nonimmediate in 77.1% and 22.4%, respectively. Cluster analysis categorized the total study population in 5 clusters. Cluster 1 compiled all nonimmediate and cluster 2–5 almost all immediate reactors. Cluster 1 and 2 had recent reactions (

Objective To study the diagnostic and treatment modalities used in drug allergy/hypersensitivity among members of the World Allergy Organization (WAO).Methods A questionnaire comprising 39 questions was circulated electronically to member societies, associate member societies, and regional and affiliate organizations of WAO between June 29, 2009, and August 9, 2009.Results Eighty-two responses were received. Skin testing was used by 74.7%, with only 71.4% having access to penicillin skin test reagents. In vitro-specific IgE tests were used by 67.4%, and basophil activation test was used by 54.4%. Lymphocyte transformation tests were used by 36.8% and patch tests by 54.7%. Drug provocation tests were used by 68.4%, the most common indication being to exclude hypersensitivity where history/symptoms were not suggestive of drug hypersensitivity/allergy (76.9%). Rapid desensitization for chemotherapy, antibiotics, or biologic agents was used by 69.6%. Systemic corticosteroid was used in the treatment of Stevens-Johnson syndrome by 72.3%, and high-dose intravenous immunoglobulins in toxic epidermal necrolysis by 50.8%. Human leukocyte antigen screening before prescription of abacavir was used by 92.9% and before prescription of carbamazepine by 21.4%.Conclusions 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 WAO member societies. Keywords: desensitization, drug allergy, hypersensitivity, skin tests