Serum Sickness-like Reaction Research Articles

Infusion Reactions to Infliximab in Pediatric Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Infliximab (IFX) is a recombinant DNA-derived chimeric IgG monoclonal antibody protein that inhibits tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α). IFX, like other agents derived from foreign proteins, can cause infusion reactions both during and after the infusion. The incidence of infusion reactions ranges between 0% and 15% in pediatric patients. The potential underlying mechanisms for these reactions may include anaphylaxis and anaphylactoid reactions, cytokine release syndrome, serum sickness-like reactions, and the development of antibodies against IFX. Several precautions can help reduce the risk of a new infusion reaction, such as a gradual increase in the infusion rate, scheduled infusions, and administering premedication or immunomodulators alongside IFX. Acute mild to moderate reactions often resolve spontaneously after a temporary cessation of the infusion or reduction in the infusion rate. Strategies like graded dose challenges and premedication can be utilized to prevent recurrence. In cases of severe reactions, desensitization or switching to an alternative biologic may be considered. This article aims to review the most recent guidelines for managing IFX-related infusion reactions in pediatric patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), relying on the best available evidence.

Serum Sickness and Serum Sickness-Like Reactions Presenting to Pediatric Hospital.

Serum Sickness and Serum Sickness-Like Reactions Presenting to Pediatric Hospital.

Serum sickness-like reaction to D-mannose supplement: a case report

BackgroundSerum Sickness-Like Reaction (SSLR) is an immune response characterized by rash, polyarthralgias, inflammation, and fever. Serum sickness-like reaction is commonly attributed to antibiotics, anticonvulsants, and anti-inflammatory agents.Case presentationA 16-year-old female with a history of overactive bladder and anemia presented with a diffuse urticarial rash, headaches, joint pain, and swelling for three days. Her medications included oral contraceptive pills, iron, mirabegron, UQora, and a probiotic. Physical examination revealed a diffuse urticarial rash, and her musculoskeletal exam revealed swelling and tenderness in her wrists. She was evaluated by her pediatrician and started on a 7-day course of prednisone, as well as antihistamines. Her CBC, basic metabolic panel, liver function panel, Lyme titers, and urinalysis were all within normal limits. With concern for hypersensitivity reaction to medication, all medications were discontinued. Nine days after symptom onset, the patient was evaluated by an allergist, who confirmed her presentation was consistent with serum sickness-like reaction. Her symptoms resolved, and her medications were re-introduced sequentially over several months. Restarting UQora, however, triggered a recurrence of her symptoms, and it was identified as the culprit medication. Consequently, UQora was permanently discontinued, and the patient has remained symptom-free.ConclusionsThis case report describes the first documented case of serum sickness-like reaction caused by UQora (active ingredient D-mannose). D-mannose is a monosaccharide, and it is frequently promoted to prevent urinary tract infections. While the clinical features and timeline in this case were typical of serum sickness-like reaction, UQora as the trigger was highly unusual. Clinicians should be aware of the diverse triggers of serum sickness-like reaction and the importance of prompt identification and management to enhance patient safety. Further research is necessary to better understand the potential therapeutic applications of D-mannose, as well as the potential risks and interactions.

Prolonged drug provocation with an initial full therapeutic dose to diagnose serum sickness-like reaction to β-lactams in children.

Prolonged drug provocation with an initial full therapeutic dose to diagnose serum sickness-like reaction to β-lactams in children.

The many faces of pediatric urticaria.

Urticaria is a common disease that can affect individuals of all age groups, with approximately one-quarter of the population experiencing it at least once in their lifetime. Lesions characterized by erythema and itchy hives can appear anywhere on the body. These can vary in size ranging from millimeters to centimeters, and typically clear within 24 h. About 40% of patients with urticaria have accompanying angioedema, which involves localized deep tissue swelling. Urticaria usually occurs spontaneously and is classified into acute and chronic forms, with the latter referring to a condition that lasts for more than 6 weeks. The prevalence of chronic urticaria in the general population ranges from 0.5% to 5%, and it can either be inducible or spontaneous. The most common form of pediatric urticaria is acute and is usually self-limiting. However, a broad differential diagnosis should be considered in children with urticaria, particularly if they also have accompanying systemic complaints. Differential diagnoses of pediatric urticaria include chronic spontaneous urticaria, chronic inducible urticaria, serum sickness-like reaction, urticarial vasculitis, and mast cell disorders. Conditions that can mimic urticaria, including but not limited to cryopyrinopathies, hyper IgD syndrome, Periodic Fever, Aphthous Stomatitis, Pharyngitis and Adenitis (PFAPA), Tumor Necrosis Factor Receptor Associated Periodic Syndrome (TRAPs), and Schnitzler syndrome should also be considered. The many faces of pediatric urticaria can be both easy and confusing. A pragmatic approach relies on clinical foresight and understanding the various forms of urticaria and their potential mimickers. This approach can pave the way for an accurate and optimized diagnostic approach in children with urticaria.

A Case of a Serum Sickness-Like Reaction After Postexposure Rabies Prophylaxis

BackgroundSerum sickness secondary to rabies postexposure prophylaxis is not well documented in the medical literature. Our case describes serum sickness after exposure to human-derived rabies immunoglobulin (HRIG) and three human diploid rabies vaccines (HDCV) in a young adult male. Case ReportA 30-year-old previously healthy male patient presented to the Emergency Department with complaints of fever, rash, and jaundice, and had a hospital course complicated by biliary stenosis likely secondary to reactive periportal lymphadenopathy. His initial laboratory values demonstrated obstructive jaundice and slightly elevated complement component 4 levels. These symptoms likely are due to the course of HRIG and HDCV vaccines the patient completed after being exposed to a rabies-positive bat in his home. The patient was hospitalized for 8 days, during which he underwent an endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with sphincterotomy and biliary stenting. He had one repeat hospitalization for acute blood loss anemia attributed to sphincterotomy, which did not require transfusion or further intervention. Liver biopsy showed cholestatic hepatitis. Why Should an Emergency Physician Be Aware of This?Medical literature describing serum sickness or a serum sickness-like reaction occurring from exposure to HRIG or HDCV is sparse despite the commonality of postexposure rabies prophylaxis in health care. It is important to educate practitioners on this potential complication and highlight next potential consultations and treatments.

E088 Safety of guselkumab in patients with psoriatic disease: an integrated analysis of 11 Phase 2 and 3 clinical studies in psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis

Abstract Background/Aims Guselkumab is a monoclonal antibody approved to treat moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis and active psoriatic arthritis (PsA). In this analysis, safety data from 11 Phase 2/3 studies of guselkumab were pooled to evaluate guselkumab safety in a large population of patients with psoriatic disease. Methods Guselkumab was generally administered as 100-mg injections at Week (W)0, W4, then Q8W in 7 psoriasis studies and at W0, W4, then Q4W or Q8W in 4 PsA studies. Patients randomized to placebo crossed over to guselkumab Q8W at W16 in 5 PsO studies and to guselkumab Q4W or Q8W at W24 in all PsA studies. Safety data were summarized for the placebo-controlled period (W0-W16 in PsO; W0-W24 in PsA) and through the end of the reporting period (up to 5 years in PsO; up to 2 years in PsA). Incidence rates of key safety events were integrated post-hoc, adjusted for duration of follow-up, and reported per 100 patient-years (PY). Results During the placebo-controlled periods, 1061 patients received placebo (395 PY) and 2257 received guselkumab (856 PY). Through the long-term reporting periods, 4399 guselkumab-treated patients (PsO: 2891; PsA: 1508) contributed 10787 PY of follow-up (PsO: 8662 PY; PsA: 2125 PY). In PsO and PsA studies, pooled incidence rates of overall adverse events (AEs) were similar between guselkumab- and placebo-treated patients. Rates of serious AEs, AEs leading to discontinuation, serious infections, malignancy, and major adverse cardiovascular events were low and generally similar between guselkumab- and placebo-treated patients. Rates of safety events remained consistent through the long-term reporting period for guselkumab-treated patients (Table). No cases of Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis were reported in guselkumab-treated patients. No serum sickness-like or anaphylactic reactions related to guselkumab were reported. No opportunistic infections were reported in any guselkumab-treated PsO patient. Three cases of opportunistic infection were reported in pooled PsA studies (0.14/100 PY; all post-W52 in DISCOVER-2). No cases of active tuberculosis were reported across all studies. Conclusion In the most comprehensive analysis of guselkumab safety to date, AE rates in guselkumab-treated patients were similar to those observed with placebo and were stable throughout long-term follow-up. Disclosure B. Strober: Grants/research support; AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Meiji Seika Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB Pharma, Sun Pharma, Regeneron, Dermira, Leo Pharma, Inc, Arcutis, Are. L. Coates: Grants/research support; AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB; grant/research support from AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Jan. J. Yu: Shareholder/stock ownership; Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Johnson & Johnson. K. Rowland: Shareholder/stock ownership; Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, Johnson & Johnson; E. Leibowitz, Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, Johnson & Johnson. E. Leibowitz: Shareholder/stock ownership; Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, Johnson & Johnson; E. Leibowitz, Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, Johnson & Johnson. M. Miller: Shareholder/stock ownership; Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, Johnson & Johnson; E. Leibowitz, Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, Johnson & Johnson. A. Kollmeier: Shareholder/stock ownership; Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, Johnson & Johnson; E. Leibowitz, Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, Johnson & Johnson. S. Li: Shareholder/stock ownership; Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, Johnson & Johnson; E. Leibowitz, Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, Johnson & Johnson. Y. Wang: Shareholder/stock ownership; Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, Johnson & Johnson; E. Leibowitz, Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, Johnson & Johnson. D. Chan: Shareholder/stock ownership; Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, Johnson & Johnson. S. Chakravarty: Shareholder/stock ownership; Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, Johnson & Johnson; Y. Yang, Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies, Johnson & Johnson. Y. Yang: Shareholder/stock ownership; Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies, Johnson & Johnson. M. Shawi: Shareholder/stock ownership; Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson and Johnson. M. Lebwohl: Grants/research support; Arcutis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Verrica, AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Ortho Dermatologics, Pfizer, UCB Pharma, Avotres Therapeutics, AnaptysBio, Aristea Therapeutics, BioMX, Cara Therapeutics, Castle Biosciences, Dermavant, Evommune, Facilitatation of International Dermatology Education, Forte Biosciences, Foundation for Research and Education in Dermatology, Hexima, Meiji Seika Pharma, Mindera Health, Regeneron, Seanergy, Incyte, Arrive Technologies, Dr Reddy's Laboratories, Evelo Biosciences, Helsinn Therapeutics, LEO Pharma, Mount Sinai, CorEvitas (formerly Cor. P. Rahman: Shareholder/stock ownership; Janssen, Novartis, AbbVie, Eli Lilly and Company, Pfizer.

Serum Sickness-Like Reaction Associated with Epstein – Barr Virus: Clinical Case

Background. Annular dermatoses are a group of diseases with major clinical manifestation of rashes of relevant form. This manifestation pattern causes difficulties in diagnosis. The case of rarely diagnosed annular dermatosis is presented: serum siknesslike reaction (SSLR) triggered by the Epstein – Barr virus (EBV).Clinical case description. Patient D., 8 years old girl, noted abdominal pain 3 weeks before hospitalization, and later numerous polymorphic rashes (erythematous macules, urticarial elements), swelling and pain in joints. Self-treatment with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory and systemic antihistamines did not lead to any improvement. The patient was hospitalized in the pediatric department at the place of residence, where the diagnosis “Henoch-Schonlein purpura, mixed type” was established according to the results of physical, laboratory (double increase of ALT and AST, ESR up to 166 mm/h, IgM to EBV), and ultrasound (mesenteric lymph nodes hyperplasia) studies. Systemic glucocorticosteroids have led to improvement, however, few days after the end of the treatment there was relapse of rash and arthralgia. Thus, the girl was administrated to clinical diagnostic center. Patient’s general condition was satisfactory at the time of examination. There were numerous erythematous annular urticarial and macular elements (3–12 cm) on the skin of face, body and limbs. Some foci, as well as some resolved rashes had blue spots with indistinct boundaries that disappeared after compression. Mucous membranes, nails and hair were intact. Subjective symptoms — slight burning around rashes, at palpation — low-intensity pain in the left radiocarpal joint. Blood tests: C-reactive protein concentration increased up to 12 mg/L, ESR up to 26 mm/h, IgG to EBV up to 47.7.Conclusion. During differential diagnosis we should consider the possibility of SSLR development in all pediatric patients with annular rashes associated with arthralgia and/or arthritis, fever, history of drug use (most often beta-lactam antibiotics), recent vaccination or manifestations of viral infection, especially in case of cyanotic spots after rashes resolution and non-specific laboratory parameters.

Drug allergy: A 2022 practice parameter update

Drug allergy: A 2022 practice parameter update

Beta-lactam hypersensitivity diagnosis in ambulatory and hospitalized settings require different approaches

BackgroundData on beta-lactam hypersensitivity (BLH) are mainly focused on immediate or mild nonimmediate reactions in the ambulatory setting, but limited in patients with concurrent illness and moderate-to-severe nonimmediate reactions in the hospitalized setting. ObjectiveTo investigate the entire spectrum of BLH in Thai tertiary hospital. MethodsClinical characteristics of 357 patients with suspected BLH were evaluated in a 7-year period. Culprit drug identification was performed in 335 patients by combined skin testing, in vitro testing, or drug provocation tests. ResultsThe predominant BLH presentations were non–immunoglobulin (Ig)E-mediated reactions with severe cutaneous adverse reactions of 18.9%, and BLH status was definitively confirmed in 18.1%. The most common verified culprits were cephalosporins (34.8%), particularly in hypersensitivity type IV reactions. Natural penicillins were the main implicated drugs in 48.5% of ambulatory patients. In contrast, cephalosporins and carbapenems were the main implicated drugs in hospitalized patients. Non–IgE-mediated anaphylaxis and serum sickness-like reaction remained diagnostically challenged. New generations of beta-lactams, hospitalized patients, recent allergic history, and underlying malignancies or autoimmune diseases were associated with increased BLH risk. ConclusionAt present, cephalosporins are the leading causes of BLH, particularly in non–IgE-mediated reactions. More research on the verification of non-IgE hypersensitivity reactions from new generations of beta-lactams should be better emphasized. Clinical Trial RegistrationThe registry was approved by the Ethics and Research Committee of the Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, and listed on ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT01667055; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01667055).

The role of in vitro testing in pharmacovigilance for ß-lactam-induced serum sickness-like reaction: A pilot study.

Background: Current pharmacovigilance (PV) methods for detection of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) fail to capture rare immune-mediated drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) due to their scarcity and the lack of clear diagnostic criteria. Drug-induced serum sickness-like reactions (SSLRs) are rare type of DHRs that occur in susceptible patients 1–3 weeks after exposure to the culprit drug with ß-lactam antibiotics being the most associated drugs. The diagnosis of drug induced SSLR is difficult due to the lack of safe and reliable diagnostic tests for identifying the culprit drug. The lymphocyte toxicity assay (LTA) is an in vitro test used as a diagnostic tool for drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs). Objective: To evaluate the role of the LTA test for diagnosing and capturing SSLR due to ß-lactam antibiotics in a cohort of patients. Methods: Patients were recruited from patients referred to the Drug Hypersensitivity Clinic at Clinic at London Health Science Centre with suspicion of drug allergy. Twenty patients (10 males and 10 females) were selected to be tested to confirm diagnosis. Demographic data was collected form the patents and blood samples were withdrawn from all patients and from 20 healthy controls. The LTA test was performed on all subjects and data is expressed as percentage increase in cell death compared to control (vehicle without the drug). Results: In the result of LTA tests performed on samples from the selected 20 patients. There was a significant (p < 0.05) concentration-dependent increase in cell death in cells isolated from patients as compared to cells from healthy controls when incubated with the drug in the presence of phenobarbitone-induced rat liver microsomes. Conclusion: Giving its safety and good predictive value the LTA test has very strong potential to be a useful diagnostic tool for ß-lactam-induced SSLR. The test procedure is relatively simple and not overly costly. Further studies including other drug classes are needed to evaluate the utility of the LTA test for SSLR due to other drugs.

Distinct Characteristics and Chronology of Amoxicillin-Associated Reactions in Pediatric Acute Care Settings

Amoxicillin-associated reactions (AARs) in children presenting as rashes are common, and recent data suggest that >90% tolerate amoxicillin on re-exposure. However, additional data would help pediatricians and allergists gain confidence in referring and testing children who experienced systemic symptoms perceived as "worrisome," thus leading to urgent medical evaluations. By characterizing the entire spectrum of AAR symptoms in pediatric patients presenting to emergency department (ED)/urgent care (UC) settings, we sought to increase our diagnostic acumen to guide subsequent allergy evaluations. To fully characterize clinical features of rash and systemic symptoms in children presenting to the ED/UC with AARs. A retrospective chart review of children seen in the ED/UC from July 1, 2015, to June 30, 2017, was conducted. Clinical features, chronology, and seasonality were detailed, and cases were classified into 3 previously described AAR phenotypes: maculopapular exanthem (MPE), urticaria, and serum sickness-like reactions (SSLRs), if they experienced joint symptoms. Children (n= 668; median age: 1.8 years) presented to the ED/UC with urticaria (44%), MPE (36%), and SSLRs (11%) typically on days 7 to 10 of amoxicillin. Although children with SSLRs were more frequently treated with corticosteroids (28%, P < .0001) and exhibited higher rates of "worrisome" features (fever, angioedema, or gastrointestinal symptoms; 73%, P < .0001), delayed-onset systemic symptoms were identified frequently in all 3 groups. ED/UC reutilization was unexpectedly high with 66 children (10%) returning to the ED/UC for re-evaluation. "Worrisome" symptoms are common in children presenting to the ED/UC with AARs. Future studies are needed to determine the impact on subsequent referral and allergy testing.

Cutaneous Adverse Drug Reactions

An adverse drug reaction is defined as any noxious, unintended, and undesired effect of a drug that occurs at doses used in humans for prophylaxis, diagnosis, or therapy. A cutaneous eruption is one of the most common manifestations of an adverse drug reaction. This chapter reviews the epidemiology, etiology, diagnosis, clinical manifestations, and differential diagnosis of adverse drug reactions, as well as laboratory tests for them. Also discussed are the types of cutaneous eruption: exanthematous eruption, urticarial eruption, blistering eruption, pustular eruption, and others. The simple and complex forms of each type of eruption are reviewed. The chapter includes 4 tables and 12 figures. Tables present the warning signs of a serious drug eruption, clinical features of hypersensitivity syndrome reaction and serum sickness-like reaction, characteristics of Stevens-Johnson Syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis, and clinical pearls to identify anticoagulant-induced skin necrosis. Figures illustrate hypersensitivity syndrome reaction, a fixed drug eruption from tetracycline, pseudoporphyria from naproxen, linear immunoglobulin A disease induced by vancomycin, pemphigus foliaceus from taking enalapril, pemphigus vulgaris from taking penicillamine, toxic epidermal necrolysis after starting phenytoin therapy, acneiform drug eruption due to gefitinib, acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis from cloxacillin, coumarin-induced skin necrosis, a lichenoid drug eruption associated with ramipril, and leukocytoclastic vasculitis from hydrochlorothiazide. This chapter contains 106 references.

Cutaneous Adverse Drug Reactions

An adverse drug reaction is defined as any noxious, unintended, and undesired effect of a drug that occurs at doses used in humans for prophylaxis, diagnosis, or therapy. A cutaneous eruption is one of the most common manifestations of an adverse drug reaction. This chapter reviews the epidemiology, etiology, diagnosis, clinical manifestations, and differential diagnosis of adverse drug reactions, as well as laboratory tests for them. Also discussed are the types of cutaneous eruption: exanthematous eruption, urticarial eruption, blistering eruption, pustular eruption, and others. The simple and complex forms of each type of eruption are reviewed. The chapter includes 4 tables and 12 figures. Tables present the warning signs of a serious drug eruption, clinical features of hypersensitivity syndrome reaction and serum sickness-like reaction, characteristics of Stevens-Johnson Syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis, and clinical pearls to identify anticoagulant-induced skin necrosis. Figures illustrate hypersensitivity syndrome reaction, a fixed drug eruption from tetracycline, pseudoporphyria from naproxen, linear immunoglobulin A disease induced by vancomycin, pemphigus foliaceus from taking enalapril, pemphigus vulgaris from taking penicillamine, toxic epidermal necrolysis after starting phenytoin therapy, acneiform drug eruption due to gefitinib, acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis from cloxacillin, coumarin-induced skin necrosis, a lichenoid drug eruption associated with ramipril, and leukocytoclastic vasculitis from hydrochlorothiazide. This chapter contains 106 references.

Cutaneous Adverse Drug Reactions

An adverse drug reaction is defined as any noxious, unintended, and undesired effect of a drug that occurs at doses used in humans for prophylaxis, diagnosis, or therapy. A cutaneous eruption is one of the most common manifestations of an adverse drug reaction. This chapter reviews the epidemiology, etiology, diagnosis, clinical manifestations, and differential diagnosis of adverse drug reactions, as well as laboratory tests for them. Also discussed are the types of cutaneous eruption: exanthematous eruption, urticarial eruption, blistering eruption, pustular eruption, and others. The simple and complex forms of each type of eruption are reviewed. The chapter includes 4 tables and 12 figures. Tables present the warning signs of a serious drug eruption, clinical features of hypersensitivity syndrome reaction and serum sickness-like reaction, characteristics of Stevens-Johnson Syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis, and clinical pearls to identify anticoagulant-induced skin necrosis. Figures illustrate hypersensitivity syndrome reaction, a fixed drug eruption from tetracycline, pseudoporphyria from naproxen, linear immunoglobulin A disease induced by vancomycin, pemphigus foliaceus from taking enalapril, pemphigus vulgaris from taking penicillamine, toxic epidermal necrolysis after starting phenytoin therapy, acneiform drug eruption due to gefitinib, acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis from cloxacillin, coumarin-induced skin necrosis, a lichenoid drug eruption associated with ramipril, and leukocytoclastic vasculitis from hydrochlorothiazide. This chapter contains 106 references.

Addressing beta‐lactam allergy: A time for action

Addressing beta‐lactam allergy: A time for action

Outcomes of Penicillin Allergy Testing in Children with High-Risk Reaction Histories

Over 90% of penicillin-allergic children tolerate subsequent drug provocation challenges (DPCs), including those with serum sickness-like reactions (SSLRs). As more data are needed to guide appropriate risk stratification and testing based on reaction histories, we characterized higher-risk vs. lower-risk patients in the penicillin allergy registry at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital.

M091 URTICARIA MULTIFORME: TO CHALLENGE OR NOT CHALLENGE, THAT IS THE QUESTION...

Urticaria multiforme (UM) is a cutaneous hypersensitivity reaction commonly mistaken for erythema multiforme (EM) or serum sickness-like reaction. Little is known about the natural history and resolution of UM, causing many patients to adhere to lifelong avoidance of drugs due to fear of recurrent UM symptoms upon re-exposure. In this case, a patient with UM was successfully challenged with amoxicillin two years after initial UM presentation.

Fluoxetine-Induced Serum Sickness-Like Reaction in an Adolescent with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder and Diabetes.

Fluoxetine-Induced Serum Sickness-Like Reaction in an Adolescent with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder and Diabetes.

Hypersensitivity and Immune-related Adverse Events in Biologic Therapy.

Biologic medications are an expanding field of therapeutics for various medical conditions including cancer and inflammatory diseases. Due to their targeted approach to therapy, biologics can be less toxic than traditional systemic medications. However, as use becomes more widespread, adverse effects from biologic administration have also become apparent. Immune-related adverse events are a common mechanism by which biologics can cause on-target immune-related toxicities and both immediate and delayed-type hypersensitivity reactions. Immediate hypersensitivity reactions can be mediated by cytokine release or antibody mediated reactions, while delayed-type hypersensitivity is most often caused by serum sickness-like reactions. Additionally, biologics used for treatment of cancer using checkpoint blockade and rheumatologic disease using cytokine blockade can result in autoimmunity. Finally, when inflammatory cytokines are targeted for treatment of autoimmune or autoinflammatory disease, the host immune defense can be compromised predisposing to secondary immunodeficiency. This review will discuss the mechanisms of these reactions and discuss examples of biologics implicated in each of these adverse events.