Prevent Hypersensitivity Reactions Research Articles

조영 증강 CT 검사 시 금식 여부에 따른 조영제 과민반응 사례 비교

Contrast agent is a medication that aids in diagnosis by enhancing the visibility of tissues or blood vessels during a CT scan. However, to prevent hypersensitivity reactions, patients were inconvenienced by having to fast for more than a few hours before the contrast-enhanced CT examination. Recently, the importance of fasting is gradually diminishing as indicated by numerous studies. Our hospital has also revised the fasting guidelines accordingly. As a result, tests other than the abdomen test are now being conducted without requiring fasting. The number of cases of hypersensitivity reactions and nausea before and after the revision was not significant, and retesting did not occur either. Currently, many hospitals in Korea are implementing various fasting guidelines before contrast-enhanced CT scans. It is urgently necessary to revise these guidelines in accordance with the recently announced trend.

Predictive value of skin testing with excipients for COVID-19 vaccines

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was declared a global pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO) in March 2020. Despite the availability of therapies and the adoption of security measures, the most effective method to fight COVID-19 remains the induction of immunity through vaccines. Scientific communities have developed several types of COVID-19 vaccines since the beginning of the pandemic, including those with innovative messenger RNA (mRNA) technology. Patients with a history of allergic reactions may have an increased risk of hypersensitivity reactions to COVID-19 vaccines. Therefore, it is important that these patients are evaluated by an allergist to help monitor immediate-type adverse reactions and identify what vaccine component may elicit an allergic reaction. Various strategies have been suggested to prevent hypersensitivity reactions, including performing skin tests or in vitro tests before vaccination in high-risk patients, administering a different vaccine for the second dose in subjects reporting adverse reactions to the first dose, fractional dosing, or pretreating with anti-immunoglobulin E (IgE) monoclonal antibody. The scope of this review is to evaluate, through current evidence available in the literature, the accuracy of skin testing to the excipients of COVID-19 vaccines, especially polyethylene glycol (PEG) and polysorbate, in predicting allergic reactions to vaccination, despite the existing discordance of data and approaches to the question from the various clinical experiences, as to permit the safe administration of COVID-19 vaccines to populations around the globe.

Hidden risk of gadolinium-based contrast agents during interventional pain medicine procedures: a retrospective chart review

IntroductionEpidural steroid injections and epidural blood patches commonly involve the injection of a small amount of radiocontrast media under fluoroscopy to properly identify the target tissue or anatomic space and...

397P Comparison between Y-site co-infusion versus standard dexamethasone for preventing hypersensitivity reactions from oxaliplatin administration: A randomized controlled trial

397P Comparison between Y-site co-infusion versus standard dexamethasone for preventing hypersensitivity reactions from oxaliplatin administration: A randomized controlled trial

Pharmacogenetics to prevent hypersensitivity reactions to antiepileptic drugs: is testing performed when indicated?

Extensive scientific evidence consistently demonstrates the clinical validity and utility of HLA-B*15:02 pre-screening in averting severe cutaneous adverse reactions (SCARs), namely Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis, associated with carbamazepine or oxcarbazepine usage. Current practice guidelines and drug labeling actively advocate for pharmacogenetic pre-screening before initiating these antiepileptic drugs (AED), with particular emphasis on patients of Asian descent. However, there is a potential need to strengthen compliance with these recommendations. This retrospective study aimed to describe the pharmacogenetic pre-screening, documentation, and SCARs incidence for patients of Asian ancestry initiated on carbamazepine or oxcarbazepine at a large Northeastern USA healthcare system. Between 1 July 2016 and August 1, 2021, 27 patients with documented Asian heritage in the electronic health record (EHR) were included. The overall rate of HLA-B*15:02 pre-screening before carbamazepine or oxcarbazepine initiation was 4%. None who underwent pharmacogenetic pre-screening carried the associated HLA-B risk allele, and no SCARs were reported. Notably, pharmacogenetic results were not discretely entered into the EHR, and the results were only found as attached documents in the miscellaneous section of the EHR. There remains a significant opportunity for improving HLA-B*15:02 pre-screening for patients starting carbamazepine and oxcarbazepine to prevent SCARs in the USA.

Is ranitidine necessary as premedication for regimens containing paclitaxel? A non-inferiority study

ABSTRACT Background Histamine type-2-receptor antagonist drugs (H2-antagonists) have been used as standard treatment to prevent hypersensitivity reactions (HRs) in paclitaxel-containing regimens, however, their use has been strongly questioned. Ranitidine has been the most widely used H2-antagonist. Therefore, especially after its withdrawal from the market, the objective of this study is to determine the impact of its elimination from premedication on HR incidence. Methods A cohort, multicenter, observational, prospective, and non-inferiority study, including paclitaxel-naïve cancer patients, designed to determine the incidence of HRs of any grade associated with paclitaxel administration and analyze non-inferiority against the incidence estimated in the literature (20%), with 5% as the maximum difference (Δ). Patients with a solid neoplasm of any type/stage, who initiated treatment with paclitaxel without H2-antagonists in the premedication regimen were enrolled. Results A total of 441 patients were included, of whom 50 presented 54 HRs of any grade. The cumulative incidence was 11.3% (95%CI 8.5–14.7), thus fulfilling the hypothesis of non-inferiority. Of the overall HRs detected, 15 were grade ≥ 3 with a cumulative incidence of 3.4% (95%CI 1.9–5.5). Conclusions This study demonstrates that the elimination of ranitidine from paclitaxel premedication schedules is non-inferior in the development of HRs of any grade compared to the administration of H2-antagonists.

Modified rush venom immunotherapy in dogs with Hymenoptera hypersensitivity.

Hymenoptera envenomation occurs frequently in people and dogs and can trigger anaphylaxis. Venom immunotherapy (VIT) is the only preventive treatment for Hymenoptera hypersensitivity and is indicated for people with severe adverse reactions to insect stings. Rush VIT is an accelerated VIT protocol in people. This has not been reported in dogs. The objective of the study was to evaluate the safety of modified rush VIT. Twenty client-owned dogs with Hymenoptera hypersensitivity based on a history of adverse reactions to Hymenoptera envenomation and a positive intradermal test to honey bee and/or paper wasp venom. Dogs received incremental doses of venom via subcutaneous injection one day per week for three consecutive weeks until the maintenance dose was achieved. Vital signs were recorded every 30 min prior to venom administration. Adverse reactions were categorised as localised or grade I-IV systemic reactions. Nineteen of 20 dogs (95%) completed rush VIT. One dog experienced a grade III systemic adverse reaction and was withdrawn from the study. No adverse reactions occurred in 10 of 20 dogs (50%). Localised and grade I-II systemic reactions occurred in nine of 20 dogs (45%), including nausea (n = 5), injection site pruritus (n = 3) and diarrhoea and lethargy (n = 1). Modified rush VIT in dogs was well-tolerated and should be considered for dogs with Hymenoptera hypersensitivity. Larger studies are needed to evaluate the efficacy of VIT in dogs for preventing hypersensitivity reactions to insect stings.

Erroneous detection of desensitization doses in the prevention of hypersensitivity reactions

BackgroundDesensitization protocols have empirically established their efficacy and safety in eliminating most of the hypersensitivity reactions to drugs and other allergens. Without such procedures, the offending drugs can otherwise be lethal, for some patients, when singularly administered at therapeutic doses. These binding events and the subsequent signaling cascades have been extensively modulated by different desensitization methods, without any clear explanation as to why it is necessary to use increasing allergen doses.PurposeTo use a novel theoretical approach in order to model the desensitization algorithms currently in practice, that seeks to shed light on the mechanism behind their clinical efficacy.MethodAn approach using signal processing concepts is applied in this work to introduce aliasing as the erroneous detection of higher drug doses responsible for the efficacy of desensitization procedures.ResultsAvailable experimental data is modeled and correct predictions as to the efficacy of the drug treatment procedures are produced.ConclusionsDesensitization algorithms may benefit from using concepts from signal processing theory in order to avoid hypersensitivity reactions.

Review Article: Mechanisms and Efficacy of Using Diphenhydramine as a Chemotherapy Premedication

The use of chemotherapeutic agents can cause side effects that have a negative impact on the patient's quality of life and have the potential to cause unexpected reactions. This reaction is known as a hypersensitivity reaction where. This reaction occurs at therapeutic doses that resemble an allergic reaction. The effects of these reactions can range from mild to life-threatening. The use of diphenhydramine as a chemotherapy premedication has been widely studied for its effectiveness in reducing the risk of hypersensitivity and toxicity from the use of chemotherapeutic agents. Therefore, this review article aims to provide an understanding of the importance of the use of premedication, as prevention of hypersensitivity reactions and reduce the potential for toxicity from the use of chemotherapeutic agents. The method used in this literature study is to identify and review various research articles through the MeSH PubMed database, ScienceDirect with the keywords “Diphenhydramine”, “Prevention”, “Premedication”, “Hypersensitivity Reaction” “Toxicity” and “Chemotherapy” as relevant references. An analysis was conducted on relevant research articles related to the mechanism and efficacy of diphenhydramine in the use of chemotherapy. The research article that forms the basis for writing this literature study, as a whole, shows that the use of diphenhydramine as an anti- histamine is one of the effective prophylaxis that can be used before the use of chemotherapy agents to minimize the occurrence of unwanted hypersensitivity and toxicity effects.

Clinical Case of Drug Allergy to Enzyme Replacement Therapy in a Patient with Mucopolysaccharidosis Type II

Background. Enzyme replacement therapy (ERT) with iduronate-2-sulfatase recombinant forms (idursulfase and idursulfase beta) is effective for the management of mucopolysaccharidosis type II (MPS II). Patients with Hunter syndrome require lifelong ERT that can negate endogenous enzyme deficiency. However, hypersensitivity reactions may occur during ERT, and they significantly complicate the implementation of vital therapy.Clinical case description. This article describes clinical case of a child with hypersensitivity reaction to ERT. The patient with confirmed diagnosis of MPS II was administrated with idursulfase. Then, the drug was replaced with idursulfase beta due to the allergic reaction. Thus, even after the drug change, side effects maintained without sustained improvement with underlying glucocorticosteroids (GCS), antihistamines and with decreased infusion rate. Concerning the vital need to continue ERT, this patient with drug allergy to this pharmacotherapeutic group was further administered with combined therapy of cyclosporine and omalizumab. Personalised protocol for the administration of idursulfase beta with desensitization was developed. Such experience was firstly described In Russian patient.Conclusion. The presented personalised combination therapy made it possible to prevent hypersensitivity reactions during ERT in the patient with MPS II.

Pharmacological Prevention of Hypersensitivity Reactions Caused by Iodinated Contrast Media: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Objectives: Hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) are uncommon but serious adverse events following the administration of iodinated contrast media (ICM) prior to CT imaging. While premedication is almost universally given in high-risk patients, there is a lack of evidence regarding the efficacy of such premedication. This study aims to determine the efficacy of premedication with corticosteroids prior to ICM administration in the prevention of HSRs through meta-analysis. Materials and Methods: An extensive review of the literature yielded 404 potentially relevant studies. Of these, five studies met the inclusion criteria of this meta-analysis. Pooled HSR event rates were obtained from each of the studies for both patients who had and who had not received premedication with corticosteroids. Heterogeneity between studies was also determined. Results: A total of 736 patients across all five studies were included in the analysis. Patients who did not receive premedication had initial pooled HSR rates of 0.16 (95% CI, 0.07–0.35) across all studies. Following premedication, pooled HSR rates dropped to 0.02 (95% CI, 0.01–0.06). Patients who had prior HSRs were significantly less likely to experience HSRs (OR = 0.09; 95% CI, 0.03–0.25; p < 0.00001) after treatment with premedication. Conclusions: This meta-analysis offers evidence for the reduction in the recurrence of moderate and severe HSRs in patients who have a history of such reactions. Premedication with corticosteroids prior to ICM administration is thus highly recommended in high-risk patients.

Immediate Hypersensitivity Reactions Induced by COVID-19 Vaccines: Current Trends, Potential Mechanisms and Prevention Strategies.

As the world deals with the COVID-19 pandemic, vaccination remains vital to successfully end this crisis. However, COVID-19-vaccine-induced immediate hypersensitivity reactions presenting with potentially life-threatening systemic anaphylactic reactions are one of the reasons for vaccine hesitancy. Recent studies have suggested that different mechanisms, including IgE-mediated and non-IgE-mediated mast cell activation, may be involved in immediate hypersensitivity. The main culprits triggering hypersensitivity reactions have been suggested to be the excipients of vaccines, including polyethylene glycol and polysorbate 80. Patients with a history of allergic reactions to drugs, foods, or other vaccines may have an increased risk of hypersensitivity reactions to COVID-19 vaccines. Various strategies have been suggested to prevent hypersensitivity reactions, including performing skin tests or in vitro tests before vaccination, administering different vaccines for the primary and following boosters, changing the fractionated doses, or pretreating the anti-IgE antibody. This review discusses the current trends, potential mechanisms, and prevention strategies for COVID-19-vaccine-induced immediate hypersensitivity reactions.

Premedication Protocols to Prevent Hypersensitivity Reactions to Chemotherapy: a Literature Review.

Hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) to chemotherapy may prevent patients from receiving the most effective therapy. This review was undertaken to identify evidence-based preventive premedication strategies that reduce the likelihood of HSR in the first instance and improve the safety of subsequent infusions in patients who have demonstrated HSR to a certain class of chemotherapy.PubMed was searched until October 2021 using the key words: "hypersensitivity to chemotherapeutic drugs," "hypersensitivity to antineoplastic agents," "taxanes hypersensitivity," "platinum compound hypersensitivity," "premedication," "dexamethasone," "prednisone," "hydrocortisone," "antihistamine," "diphenhydramine," "cetirizine," "famotidine," "meperidine," "aspirin," "ibuprofen," and "montelukast." The search was restricted to articles published in English.A total of 73 abstracts were selected for inclusion in the review. Most premedication regimens have been derived empirically rather than determined through randomized trials.Based on the available evidence, we provide an update on likely HSR mechanisms and a practical guide for classifying systemic HSR. The evidence indicates that a combination of prevention strategies using newer antihistamines, H2 antagonists, leukotriene receptor antagonists, and corticosteroids and other interventions used judiciously reduces the occurrence and severity of HSR and improves safety.

Efficacy of a Standardized Premedication and Therapeutic Drug Monitoring Protocol for Pegaspargase to Prevent Hypersensitivity Reactions.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a standardized premedication and therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) protocol to prevent hypersensitivity reactions from pegaspargase infusions. Pegaspargase is an essential therapeutic agent used for the treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) in pediatric patients. This study was a retrospective cohort study conducted at Wolfson Children's Hospital, Jacksonville, Florida, and included pediatric ALL patients 0 to 21 years old. Patients were excluded if they had not received the appropriate premedication after protocol implementation or had received premedication before protocol implementation. Patients were separated into 2 groups: those who received premedication before pegaspargase infusion and those who did not. The primary endpoint was the incidence of documented hypersensitivity reactions. Observational data endpoints included incidence of silent inactivation and cost savings from reducing complicated drug substitutions. A total of 38 patients (50 doses in no premedication group; 80 doses in premedication group) were evaluated. There was not a significant reduction in the incidence of hypersensitivity reactions for patients receiving premedication and TDM (5.3% vs 6.4%, p = 1.0). A trend towards patients reacting earlier with more severe reactions in the post-implementation group was observed. There were no incidences of silent inactivation. Observational cost analysis predicts potential drug cost savings of $106,550.45. A standardized premedication protocol did not reduce the incidence of hypersensitivity reactions. Premedication to prevent hypersensitivity reactions may provide a potential drug cost savings. Further investigation is warranted to assess the efficacy of a standardized premedication and TDM protocol to prevent hypersensitivity reactions.

Is the use of ranitidine required as a pre‐medication to prevent hypersensitivity reactions to paclitaxel?

AbstractThe aim of this brief report was to retrospectively compare the severity and incidence of hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) in patients who received ranitidine and patients who did not receive ranitidine, as part of their pre‐medication prior to paclitaxel. Data was collected for patients receiving paclitaxel‐containing protocols for breast, head and neck, or lung cancers in 2019 and 2020. The data included the pre‐medications administered prior to each paclitaxel dose, the total doses received and whether a HSR event occurred along with its severity. Eighty patients were reviewed receiving a total of 512 paclitaxel doses with 17 HSRs identified in 15 patients. Of the 241 doses in the ranitidine group, 11 HSRs were recorded for nine patients, compared to the 271 doses in the non‐ranitidine group where six HSRs were recorded for six patients. Most of the 512 chemotherapy doses were preceded by dexamethasone (100%) and loratadine (99.6%). Our results show that the incidence of paclitaxel‐related HSRs was not lowered with the addition of ranitidine to dexamethasone and loratadine. Future studies are warranted exploring the use of any H2‐antagonist as part of the pre‐medication regimen with paclitaxel‐containing protocols and their clinical relevance in preventing or minimising HSR incidence and severity.

1851P The added value of the H2 blocker ranitidine in premedication regimens during paclitaxel treatment

Ranitidine, a histamine 2-blocker, is standard of care premedication to prevent hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) caused by paclitaxel infusion. However, the added value of ranitidine in this premedication regimen is controversial. Therefore, we compared the incidence of clinically relevant HSRs during paclitaxel treatment of a standard premedication regimen including ranitidine with a premedication regimen without ranitidine.

Pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic interventions to prevent hypersensitivity reactions of non-ionic iodinated contrast media: a systematic review protocol

IntroductionIodinated contrast media are commonly used in medical imaging and can cause hypersensitivity reactions, including rare but severe life-threatening reactions. Although several prophylactic approaches have been proposed for severe reactions,...

Can prospective genetic testing be used to prevent hypersensitivity reactions to drug treatment in adults with HIV type 1?

Can prospective genetic testing be used to prevent hypersensitivity reactions to drug treatment in adults with HIV type 1?

Rapid Initiation of Antiretroviral Therapy Following Diagnosis of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Among Patients with Commercial Insurance Coverage.

New guidelines for the treatment of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) advocate for rapid initiation of antiretroviral therapy (ART) ≤ 7 days after HIV diagnosis with agents that have a high genetic barrier to resistance, good tolerability, and convenient dosing. To describe characteristics, time to ART initiation, and health care costs in commercially insured patients living with HIV in the United States who are treated ≤ 60 days after HIV diagnosis. IBM MarketScan Research Databases (January 1, 2012-December 31, 2017) were used to identify ART-naive adults with HIV-1, ≥ 6 months of continuous eligibility before first HIV diagnosis, and ART initiation ≤ 60 days of first diagnosis. ART regimen had to include a protease inhibitor (PI), an integrase strand transfer inhibitor (INSTI), or a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) with ≥ 2 nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors. Cohorts were formed based on time to ART initiation after diagnosis: ≤ 7 days or 8-60 days. Health care costs were evaluated at 6, 12, 24, and 36 months after diagnosis among patients with ≥ 36 months of continuous eligibility. Among 9,351 patients, median time to treatment was 31.0 days. Patients initiating ART > 60 days after HIV diagnosis were excluded (N = 2,608 [27.9%]), while 6,743 (72.1%) initiated ART ≤ 60 days after diagnosis and were analyzed; 18.3% and 81.7% were classified in the ≤ 7 days and 8-60 days cohorts, respectively. For all analyzed patients, mean age was 38.0 (SD = 12.0) years and 13.2% were female; 12.7%, 56.2%, and 31.1% initiated a PI, INSTI, or NNRTI-based regimen, respectively. Elvitegravir (32.9%), efavirenz (20.9%), dolutegravir (18.5%), and darunavir (8.5%) were the most commonly used antiretrovirals; most patients (74.3%) were initiated on single-tablet regimens. PI-based regimens were more common in the ≤ 7 days cohort (PI = 18.1%; darunavir = 11.4%) than in the 8-60 days cohort (PI = 11.5%; darunavir = 7.8%). INSTI-based regimens were more common in the 8-60 days cohort (INSTI = 57.7%; elvitegravir = 33.8%) than in the ≤ 7 days cohort (INSTI = 49.2%; elvitegravir = 29.1%). NNRTI-based regimens were as common in the ≤ 7 days (32.7%) and 8-60 days (30.7%) cohorts. Mean total accumulated costs were lower among patients in the ≤ 7 days cohort than in the 8-60 days cohort at all time points analyzed after diagnosis (e.g., 36 months: ≤ 7 days = $109,456; 8-60 days = $116,870). Total per-patient per-month costs decreased over time in the ≤ 7 days (i.e., 6 months = $4,359; 36 months = $3,040) and 8-60 days cohort (6 months = $4,727; 36 months = $3,246). Although 72.1% of patients initiated ART ≤ 60 days after HIV diagnosis, only 18.3% initiated ART ≤ 7 days. Many patients initiating ART ≤ 7 days used suboptimal agents with low rather than high genetic barriers to resistance (i.e., efavirenz and elvitegravir) or agents (dolutegravir) coformulated with other antiretrovirals that require testing to prevent hypersensitivity reactions. Patients in the ≤ 7 days cohort showed lower total health care costs relative to those in the 8-60 days cohort, highlighting the potential long-term benefits of rapid ART initiation. This study was supported by Janssen Scientific Affairs, which was involved in the study design, interpretation of results, manuscript preparation, and publication decisions. Emond, Lefebvre, Lafeuille, and Côté-Sergent are employees of Analysis Group, a consulting company that was contracted by Janssen Scientific Affairs to conduct this study and develop the manuscript. Benson, Tandon, Chow, and Dunn are employees of Janssen Scientific Affairs and stockholders of Johnson & Johnson. Part of the material in this study has been presented at the AMCP 2019 Annual Meeting; March 25-28, 2019; San Diego, CA.

The Role of Conformational Dynamics in Abacavir-Induced Hypersensitivity Syndrome

Abacavir is an antiretroviral drug used to reduce human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) replication and decrease the risk of developing acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). However, its therapeutic value is diminished by the fact that it is associated with drug hypersensitivity reactions in up to 8% of treated patients. This hypersensitivity is strongly associated with patients carrying human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-B*57:01, but not patients carrying closely related alleles. Abacavir’s specificity to HLA-B*57:01 is attributed to its binding site within the peptide-binding cleft and subsequent influence of the repertoire of peptides that can bind HLA-B*57:01. To further our understanding of abacavir-induced hypersensitivity we used molecular dynamics (MD) to analyze the dynamics of three different peptides bound to HLA-B*57:01 in the presence and absence of abacavir or abacavir analogues. We found that abacavir and associated peptides bind to HLA-B*57:01 in a highly diverse range of conformations that are not apparent from static crystallographic snapshots, but observed no difference in either the conformations, nor degree of flexibility when compared to abacavir-unbound systems. Our results support hypersensitivity models in which abacavir-binding alters the conformational ensemble of neopeptides, so as to favour exposed peptide surfaces that are no longer recognized as self by circulating CD8+ T cells, and are conducive to TCR binding. Our findings highlight the need to also consider the role of dynamics in understanding drug-induced hypersensitivities at the molecular and mechanistic level. This additional insight can help inform the chemical modification of abacavir to prevent hypersensitivity reactions in HLA-B*57:01+ HIV patients whilst retaining potent antiretroviral activity.