Allergic-like Events Research Articles

Clinical outcomes and management of contrast hypersensitivity in patients requiring repeated computed tomography imaging.

In collaboration with the Department of Rheumatology, Allergy and Immunology, our study aims to review the outcomes of and propose an improved workflow for the management of patients with prior hypersensitivity reactions to iodinated contrast media (ICM). Outpatients coming for contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) were stratified into 3 categories (definite, unconfirmed and inaccurate) based on likelihood of their contrast hypersensitivity label. Patients could be offered a different ICM, receive the same ICM, or be referred to an allergist for further evaluation. There were 4 outcomes: (1) alternative ICM tolerated; (2) same ICM tolerated again; (3) patient developed a hypersensitivity reaction to either alternative or original ICM; and (4) CECT was deferred until assessment by an allergist. Comparison was made pre- and post-intervention to see if patient outcomes were improved. There were 132 patients who made a total of 154 visits (90.3% had documented contrast hypersensitivity). Post-intervention, the number of visits postponed for premedication decreased (81.0% to 34.7%). There was a reduction in hypersensitivity reactions (from 42.9% to 14.3%). Of the 12 patients assessed by the allergist, 6 could continue using the same or alternative ICM, 4 were advised to abstain from further contrast administration and 2 were pending testing with a third agent. Active intervention by the radiologist can decrease the number of postponed, converted or cancelled CECT studies as well as reduce the number of adverse allergic-like events. Direct collaboration between radiologist and allergist for specific cases may be helpful in patients who will likely need future/repeated CECTs.

Rate of Recurrence of Adverse Events Following Immunization: Results of 19 Years of Surveillance In Quebec, Canada.

While adverse events following immunization (AEFI) are frequent, there are limited data on the safety of reimmunizing patients who had a prior AEFI. Our objective was to estimate the rate and severity of AEFI recurrences. We analyzed data from the AEFI passive surveillance system in Quebec, Canada, that collects information on reimmunization of patients who had a prior AEFI. Patients with an initial AEFI reported to the surveillance system between 1998 and 2016 were included. Rate of AEFI recurrence was calculated as number of patients with recurrence/total number of patients reimmunized. Overall, 1350 patients were reimmunized, of which 59% were 2 years of age or younger. The AEFI recurred in 16% (215/1350) of patients, of whom 18% (42/215) rated the recurrence as more severe than the initial AEFI. Large local reactions extending beyond the nearest joint and lasting 4 days or more had the highest recurrence rate (67%, 6/9). Patients with hypotonic hyporesponsive episodes had the lowest rate of recurrence (2%, 1/50). Allergic-like events recurred in 12% (76/659) of patients, but none developed anaphylaxis. Of 33 patients with seizures following measles mumps rubella with/without varicella vaccine, none had a recurrence. Compared with patients with nonserious AEFIs, those with serious AEFIs were less often reimmunized (60% versus 80%; rate ratio: 0.8; 95% confidence interval: 0.66-0.86). Most patients with a history of mild or moderate AEFI can be safely reimmunized. Additional studies are needed in patients with serious AEFIs who are less likely to be reimmunized.

Vaccine Allergy? Skin Testing and Challenge at a Tertiary Pediatric Hospital in Melbourne, Australia

The rate of true vaccine allergy is unknown. Children with potential IgE-mediated adverse events following immunization (AEFI) should undergo allergy investigation that may include skin testing or challenge. Previous protocols tend to be highly conservative and often suggest invasive testing for all, a practice not evidence based, technically difficult, and unpleasant in children. It has more recently been suggested that skin testing may be restricted to those with allergic-like events within the first hour and those with a history of anaphylaxis. We aimed to describe the outcome of vaccine skin testing and challenge in children referred to a tertiary pediatric hospital with a potential IgE-mediated AEFI. The secondary aim was to identify any significant risk factors for vaccine allergy. A retrospective review of all children (<18 years) who underwent vaccine skin testing (skin prick testing or intradermal testing [IDT]) or challenge over a 5-year period (May 1, 2011, to April 30, 2016) at the Royal Children's Hospital Melbourne is presented. There were 95 admissions in 73 children. Eight percent (6 of 73) of children had confirmed vaccine allergy (positive skin testing or challenge to the index vaccination). Two had positive IDT to a suspect vaccine but challenge negative to an alternative brand vaccine. Two had negative IDT but subsequent positive challenge and two had immediate urticaria on challenge without prior skin testing. All children in the positive group either had index reaction within 15 minutes of vaccination or had history consistent with anaphylaxis. The vast majority of children (92%) presenting with a potential IgE-mediated AEFI are able to tolerate challenge to a suspect vaccine without reaction. We present our investigation protocol recommending skin testing in all children with anaphylaxis and challenge with a suspect vaccine if negative testing or previous nonanaphylactic potential IgE-mediated AEFI.

Risk of Recurrence of Adverse Events Following Immunization: A Systematic Review.

Reimmunizing patients who had an adverse event following immunization (AEFI) is sometimes a challenge because there are limited data on the risk and severity of AEFI recurrence. To summarize the literature on the risk of AEFI recurrence. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane library. We included articles in English or French published before September 30, 2016. Articles were selected if they estimated the risk of AEFI recurrence in at least 5 individuals. Studies with experimental vaccines were excluded. Data on study design, setting, population, vaccines, and AEFI recurrence were extracted. Twenty-nine articles were included. Among patients with a history of hypotonic hyporesponsive episode (n = 398), anaphylaxis (n = 133), or seizures (n = 60) who were reimmunized, events recurred in 0% to 0.8%. Allergic-like events recurred in 30 of 594 reimmunized patients. Fever recurred in 0% to 84% of 836 reimmunized patients, depending on the vaccine and dose number. Among children with extensive limb swelling after the fourth dose of diphtheria-tetanus-acellular pertussis vaccine, recurrence was higher when the fifth dose was given withthe full-antigen formulation (78%) compared with the reduced-antigen formulation (53%, P = .02) LIMITATIONS: Many studies, included few patients, and those with severe AEFIs were often not reimmunized. Despite vaccines being administered to millions of people annually, there are few studies in which researchers evaluated AEFI recurrence. Published studies suggest that reimmunization is usually safe. However in these studies, severe cases were often not reimmunized.

Immediate Allergic Reactions to Gadolinium-based Contrast Agents: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Purpose To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine if there are differences in rates of immediate allergic events between classes of gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCAs). Materials and Methods PubMed and Google Scholar databases were searched for studies in which rates of immediate adverse events to GBCAs were reported. The American College of Radiology classification system was used to characterize allergic-like events as mild, moderate, or severe, and the total number of administrations of each GBCA was recorded. Where necessary, authors of studies were contacted to clarify data and eliminate physiologic reactions. Relative risks of GBCA types were estimated by using the Mantel-Haenszel type method. Results Nine studies in which immediate reactions to GBCA were recorded from a total of 716 978 administrations of GBCA met the criteria for inclusion and exclusion. The overall rate of patients who had immediate allergic-like reactions was 9.2 per 10 000 administrations and the overall rate of severe immediate allergic-like reactions was 0.52 per 10 000 administrations.. The nonionic linear chelate gadodiamide had the lowest rate of reactions, at 1.5 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.74, 2.4) per 10 000 administrations, which was significantly less than that of linear ionic GBCAs at 8.3 (95% CI: 7.5, 9.2) per 10 000 administrations (relative risk, 0.19 [95% CI: 0.099, 0.36]; P < .00001) and less than that for nonionic macrocyclic GBCAs at 16 (95% CI: 14, 19) per 10 000 administrations (relative risk, 0.12 [95% CI: 0.05, 0.31]; P < .001). GBCAs known to be associated with protein binding had a higher rate of reactions, at 17 (95% CI: 15, 20) per 10 000 administrations compared with the same chelate classification without protein binding, at 5.2 (95% CI: 4.5, 6.0) per 10 000 administrations (relative risk, 3.1 [95% CI: 2.4, 3.8]; P < .0001). Conclusion These data show the lowest rate of immediate allergic adverse events with use of the nonionic linear GBCA gadodiamide in comparison with those of ionic linear or nonionic macrocyclic GBCAs. A higher rate of immediate allergic adverse events was associated with ionicity, protein binding, and macrocyclic structure. © RSNA, 2017 An earlier incorrect version of this article appeared online. This article was corrected on August 31, 2017.

Immunizing Patients With Adverse Events After Immunization and Potential Contraindications to Immunization: A Report From the Special Immunization Clinics Network.

For patients who have experienced adverse events following immunization (AEFI) or who have specific medical conditions, there is limited evidence regarding the best approach to immunization. The Special Immunization Clinics (SICs) Network was established to standardize patient management and assess outcomes after reimmunization. The study objective was to describe the first 2 years of the network's implementation. Twelve SICs were established across Canada by infectious diseases specialists and allergists. Inclusion criteria were as follows: local reaction ≥ 10 cm, allergic symptoms < 24 hours postimmunization, neurologic symptoms and other AEFI or medical conditions of concern. Eligible patients underwent a standardized evaluation, causality assessment was performed, immunization recommendations were made by expert physicians and patients were followed up to capture AEFI. After individual consent, data were transferred to a central database for analysis. From June 2013 to May 2015, 151 patients were enrolled. Most were referred for prior AEFI (132/151, 87%): 42 (32%) for allergic-like reactions, 31 (23%) for injection-site reactions, 20 (15%) for neurologic symptoms and 39 (30%) for other systemic symptoms. Nineteen patients (13%) were seen for underlying conditions that complicated immunization. Reimmunization was recommended for 109 patients, 60 of whom (55%) were immunized and followed up. Eleven patients (18%) experienced recurrence of their AEFI; none were serious (eg, resulting in hospitalization, permanent disability or death). The most frequent reasons for referral to a SIC were allergic-like events and injection site reactions. Reimmunization was safe in most patients. Larger studies are needed to determine outcomes for specific types of AEFI.

Clinical Approach Used in Medical Consultations for Allergic-Like Events Following Immunization: Case Series Report in Relation to Practice Guidelines

The Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters (JTFPP) guidelines for the investigation and reimmunization of patients who experienced allergic-like events (ALEs) after immunization are predicated on the likelihood of anaphylaxis, assessed through the time to symptom onset (≤ or >4 hours) and number of systems involved. The objectives of this study were to compare the management of a series of patients with ALE in actual practice relative to JTFPP guidelines and to discuss key concepts and considerations in their use. This retrospective study was based on a chart review of patients who consulted for suspected vaccine-associated ALEs at a large allergy department in Canada. Only 3 of the 135 patients who presented ALEs after immunization were referred for suspected anaphylaxis. There was no significant difference in the frequency of skin testing or reimmunization of patients whatever the time to symptom onset or number of systems involved in the ALE. Eight patients whose initial ALE occurred within 1 hour after immunization had a recurrence on reimmunization. Another patient whose initial ALE occurred 10 hours after influenza immunization had throat tightening and difficulty swallowing without objective signs. Most ALEs after immunization are not suggestive of anaphylaxis and should not be managed as such. The definition of anaphylaxis in the JTFPP guidelines is nonspecific and may need to be revisited. Restricting skin testing and graded dose reimmunization to patients whose ALE onset is ≤1 hour (compatible with IgE-mediated reaction) and to those meeting specific clinical criteria for anaphylaxis (whatever the timing) is likely a sufficiently sensitive and cautious approach.

Risk factors associated with anaphylaxis and other allergic-like events following receipt of 2009 monovalent AS03-adjuvanted pandemic influenza vaccine in Quebec, Canada

IntroductionIn Quebec, Canada, receipt of the 2009 AS03-adjuvanted pandemic H1N1 vaccine was associated with increased risk of anaphylaxis and other allergic-like events (ALE), especially among women of childbearing age. In response to this safety signal, a case–control study was conducted to identify potential risk factors. MethodsA total of 435 ALE (50 anaphylaxis) occurring <24h following pandemic vaccination were compared to 849 age-gender matched controls randomly selected from the provincial Pandemic Influenza Vaccination Registry. More than 60 potential risk factors were evaluated through phone interviews and included demographic information, medical history, medication use or acute respiratory illnesses (ARI) concurrent with vaccination and other risk factors associated with general allergy. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals were estimated with unconditional logistic regression. ResultsFactors associated with increased risk of anaphylaxis included concurrent ARI (18% cases vs. 4% controls, ORadj 7.67, 95%CI: 3.04–13.37), food allergy (26% cases vs. 4% controls, ORadj 3.84, 95%CI: 1.51–9.74) and vaccination during the first four weeks of the campaign (66% cases vs. 50% controls, ORadj 2.16, 95%CI: 1.10–4.25) whereas alcohol exposure (≥1drink/week) was associated with reduced risk (29% cases vs. 42% controls, ORadj 0.26, 95%CI: 0.13–0.57). These factors were also significantly associated with any ALE but the strength of association was weaker. Allergy to components found in the vaccine (e.g., egg, thimerosal) was infrequent and did not significantly differ between cases and controls. ConclusionIncreased anaphylaxis and other allergic-like events observed in association with AS03-adjuvanted pandemic H1N1 vaccine remain mostly unexplained despite extensive risk factor review. However, prior to mass vaccination with similar formulations this safety signal warrants further consideration and better understanding. In particular, the predominance among women of childbearing age may be a clue to underlying biological or hormonal influences on adverse immunological responses to vaccine.

Trastuzumab plus docetaxel with or without capecitabine as first-line therapy for HER2-positive locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer: a randomised Phase II study

In Quebec, Canada, receipt of the 2009 AS03-adjuvanted pandemic H1N1 vaccine was associated with increased risk of anaphylaxis and other allergic-like events (ALE), especially among women of childbearing age. In response to this safety signal, a case–control study was conducted to identify potential risk factors.A total of 435 ALE (50 anaphylaxis) occurring <24 h following pandemic vaccination were compared to 849 age-gender matched controls randomly selected from the provincial Pandemic Influenza Vaccination Registry. More than 60 potential risk factors were evaluated through phone interviews and included demographic information, medical history, medication use or acute respiratory illnesses (ARI) concurrent with vaccination and other risk factors associated with general allergy. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals were estimated with unconditional logistic regression.Factors associated with increased risk of anaphylaxis included concurrent ARI (18% cases vs. 4% controls, ORadj 7.67, 95%CI: 3.04–13.37), food allergy (26% cases vs. 4% controls, ORadj 3.84, 95%CI: 1.51–9.74) and vaccination during the first four weeks of the campaign (66% cases vs. 50% controls, ORadj 2.16, 95%CI: 1.10–4.25) whereas alcohol exposure (≥1 drink/week) was associated with reduced risk (29% cases vs. 42% controls, ORadj 0.26, 95%CI: 0.13–0.57). These factors were also significantly associated with any ALE but the strength of association was weaker. Allergy to components found in the vaccine (e.g., egg, thimerosal) was infrequent and did not significantly differ between cases and controls.Increased anaphylaxis and other allergic-like events observed in association with AS03-adjuvanted pandemic H1N1 vaccine remain mostly unexplained despite extensive risk factor review. However, prior to mass vaccination with similar formulations this safety signal warrants further consideration and better understanding. In particular, the predominance among women of childbearing age may be a clue to underlying biological or hormonal influences on adverse immunological responses to vaccine.

Is There Cross-Reactivity Between Penicillins and Cephalosporins?

Background We sought to determine the risk of an allergic reaction to a cephalosporin exposure in those with prior penicillin reactions. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the United Kingdom General Practice Research Database. We selected all patients receiving a prescription for penicillin followed by a prescription for a cephalosporin and identified allergic-like events within 30 days after each prescription. Allergic events were defined by 2 sets of codes: 1 more restrictive, 1 more inclusive. Comparison was made with a population of patients receiving a prescription for a penicillin followed by a prescription for a sulfonamide antibiotic. Results A total of 3 375 162 patients received a penicillin; 506 679 (15%) received a subsequent cephalosporin. Among patients receiving a penicillin followed by a cephalosporin, the unadjusted risk ratio of an allergic-like event for those who had a prior event, compared with those who had no such prior event, narrowly defined, was 10.1 (confidence interval 7.4-13.8). The absolute risk of anaphylaxis after a cephalosporin was less than 0.001%. The unadjusted risk ratio for sulfonamide antibiotic, rather than cephalosporin after penicillin allergic-like events was 7.2 (confidence interval 3.8-13.5). Conclusion Patients with allergic-like events after penicillin had a markedly increased risk of events after either subsequent cephalosporins or sulfonamide antibiotics. Cross-reactivity is not an adequate explanation for this increased risk, and the risk of anaphylaxis is very low. Thus, our data indicate that cephalosporins can be considered for patients with penicillin allergy.

Represcription of penicillin after allergic-like events common

Represcription of penicillin after allergic-like events common

Represcription of penicillin after allergic-like events common

Represcription of penicillin after allergic-like events common

Represcription of penicillin after allergic-like events

ObjectiveWe sought to determine the frequency of represcription of penicillin to individuals with penicillin allergy and the risk of a second reaction in those who had a previous reaction. MethodsA retrospective cohort study was conducted within the UK General Practice Research Database. All patients who had received a prescription for penicillin were identified. Within that source population, records of patients who had received at least 2 prescriptions for penicillin at least 60 days apart were selected and examined for allergic-like (hypersensitivity) events on the day of or within 30 days after a prescription. ResultsAt least one prescription for penicillin was given to 3,375,162 patients. Of 6212 (0.18%) patients who experienced an allergic-like event after the initial prescription, 48.5% were given a second prescription compared with 59.8% of those without an initial allergic-like event (risk ratio, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.79-0.83). Two or more prescriptions for penicillin were given to 2,017,957 patients. Three thousand fourteen (0.15%) patients experienced an allergic-like event after the first prescription, and 57 (1.89%) of those had another event after the second prescription. The unadjusted odds ratio of an allergic-like event after the second prescription for those who experienced an allergic-like event after the first prescription, compared with those who had no initial event was 11.2 (95% CI, 8.6-14.6). Adjusting for confounding had no substantive effect on this result. ConclusionThe risk of an allergic-like event after penicillin is markedly increased in those who have had a prior event, although the absolute difference is small (1.72%). Represcription of penicillin to such patients is more frequent than anticipated.