Browsing by Author "Cernadas, Josefina (26021729900)"

Background: Anaphylaxis, which is rare, has been reported after COVID-19 vaccination, but its management is not standardized. Method: Members of the European Network for Drug Allergy and the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology interested in drug allergy participated in an online questionnaire on pre-vaccination screening and management of allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines, and literature was analysed. Results: No death due to anaphylaxis to COVID-19 vaccines has been confirmed in scientific literature. Potential allergens, polyethylene glycol (PEG), polysorbate and tromethamine are excipients. The authors propose allergy evaluation of persons with the following histories: 1—anaphylaxis to injectable drug or vaccine containing PEG or derivatives; 2—anaphylaxis to oral/topical PEG containing products; 3—recurrent anaphylaxis of unknown cause; 4—suspected or confirmed allergy to any mRNA vaccine; and 5—confirmed allergy to PEG or derivatives. We recommend a prick-to-prick skin test with the left-over solution in the suspected vaccine vial to avoid waste. Prick test panel should include PEG 4000 or 3500, PEG 2000 and polysorbate 80. The value of in vitro test is arguable. Conclusions: These recommendations will lead to a better knowledge of the management and mechanisms involved in anaphylaxis to COVID-19 vaccines and enable more people with history of allergy to be vaccinated. © 2022 EAACI and John Wiley and Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd.

Background: Anaphylaxis, which is rare, has been reported after COVID-19 vaccination, but its management is not standardized. Method: Members of the European Network for Drug Allergy and the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology interested in drug allergy participated in an online questionnaire on pre-vaccination screening and management of allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines, and literature was analysed. Results: No death due to anaphylaxis to COVID-19 vaccines has been confirmed in scientific literature. Potential allergens, polyethylene glycol (PEG), polysorbate and tromethamine are excipients. The authors propose allergy evaluation of persons with the following histories: 1—anaphylaxis to injectable drug or vaccine containing PEG or derivatives; 2—anaphylaxis to oral/topical PEG containing products; 3—recurrent anaphylaxis of unknown cause; 4—suspected or confirmed allergy to any mRNA vaccine; and 5—confirmed allergy to PEG or derivatives. We recommend a prick-to-prick skin test with the left-over solution in the suspected vaccine vial to avoid waste. Prick test panel should include PEG 4000 or 3500, PEG 2000 and polysorbate 80. The value of in vitro test is arguable. Conclusions: These recommendations will lead to a better knowledge of the management and mechanisms involved in anaphylaxis to COVID-19 vaccines and enable more people with history of allergy to be vaccinated. © 2022 EAACI and John Wiley and Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd.

Drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) are associated with high global morbidity and mortality. Cutaneous T cell–mediated reactions classically occur more than 6 hours after drug administration and include life-threatening conditions such as toxic epidermal necrolysis, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, and hypersensitivity syndrome. Over the last 20 years, significant advances have been made in our understanding of the pathogenesis of DHRs with the identification of human leukocyte antigens as predisposing factors. This has led to the development of pharmacogenetic screening tests, such as HLA-B*57:01 in abacavir therapy, which has successfully reduced the incidence of abacavir hypersensitivity reactions. We have completed a PRISMA-compliant systematic review to identify genetic associations that have been reported in DHRs. In total, 105 studies (5554 cases and 123 548 controls) have been included in the review reporting genetic associations with carbamazepine (n = 31), other aromatic antiepileptic drugs (n = 24), abacavir (n = 11), nevirapine (n = 14), trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (n = 11), dapsone (n = 4), allopurinol (n = 10), and other drugs (n = 5). The most commonly reported genetic variants associated with DHRs are located in human leukocyte antigen genes and genes involved in drug metabolism pathways. Increasing our understanding of genetic variants that contribute to DHRs will allow us to improve diagnosis, develop new treatments, and predict and prevent DHRs in the future. © 2020 EAACI and John Wiley and Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd.

Drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) are associated with high global morbidity and mortality. Cutaneous T cell–mediated reactions classically occur more than 6 hours after drug administration and include life-threatening conditions such as toxic epidermal necrolysis, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, and hypersensitivity syndrome. Over the last 20 years, significant advances have been made in our understanding of the pathogenesis of DHRs with the identification of human leukocyte antigens as predisposing factors. This has led to the development of pharmacogenetic screening tests, such as HLA-B*57:01 in abacavir therapy, which has successfully reduced the incidence of abacavir hypersensitivity reactions. We have completed a PRISMA-compliant systematic review to identify genetic associations that have been reported in DHRs. In total, 105 studies (5554 cases and 123 548 controls) have been included in the review reporting genetic associations with carbamazepine (n = 31), other aromatic antiepileptic drugs (n = 24), abacavir (n = 11), nevirapine (n = 14), trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (n = 11), dapsone (n = 4), allopurinol (n = 10), and other drugs (n = 5). The most commonly reported genetic variants associated with DHRs are located in human leukocyte antigen genes and genes involved in drug metabolism pathways. Increasing our understanding of genetic variants that contribute to DHRs will allow us to improve diagnosis, develop new treatments, and predict and prevent DHRs in the future. © 2020 EAACI and John Wiley and Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd.

A recent survey of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) Drug Allergy Interest Group (DAIG) on how European allergy specialists deal with beta-lactam (BL) hypersensitivity demonstrated a significant heterogeneity in current practice, suggesting the need to review and update existing EAACI guidelines in order to make the diagnostic procedures as safe and accurate, but also as cost-effective, as possible. For this purpose, a bibliographic search on large studies regarding BL hypersensitivity diagnosis was performed by an EAACI task force, which reviewed and evaluated the literature data using the GRADE system for quality of evidence and strength of recommendation. The updated guidelines provide a risk stratification in BL hypersensitivity according to index reaction(s), as well as an algorithmic approach, based on cross-reactivity studies, in patients with a suspicion of BL hypersensitivity and an immediate need for antibiotic therapy, when referral to an allergist is not feasible. Furthermore, the update addresses availability and concentrations of skin test (ST) reagents, ST and drug provocation test (DPT) protocols, and diagnostic algorithms and administration of alternative BL in allergic subjects. Specifically, distinct diagnostic algorithms are suggested depending on risk stratification of the patient into high and low risk based on the morphology and chronology of the reaction, immediate (ie, occurring within 1-6 hours after the last administered dose) or nonimmediate (ie, occurring more than 1 hour after the initial drug administration), and the reaction severity. Regarding the allergy workup, the main novelty of this document is the fact that in some low-risk nonimmediate reactions ST are not mandatory, especially in children. For DPT, further studies are necessary to provide data supporting the standardization of protocols, especially of those regarding nonimmediate reactions, for which there is currently no consensus. © 2019 EAACI and John Wiley and Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd.

A recent survey of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) Drug Allergy Interest Group (DAIG) on how European allergy specialists deal with beta-lactam (BL) hypersensitivity demonstrated a significant heterogeneity in current practice, suggesting the need to review and update existing EAACI guidelines in order to make the diagnostic procedures as safe and accurate, but also as cost-effective, as possible. For this purpose, a bibliographic search on large studies regarding BL hypersensitivity diagnosis was performed by an EAACI task force, which reviewed and evaluated the literature data using the GRADE system for quality of evidence and strength of recommendation. The updated guidelines provide a risk stratification in BL hypersensitivity according to index reaction(s), as well as an algorithmic approach, based on cross-reactivity studies, in patients with a suspicion of BL hypersensitivity and an immediate need for antibiotic therapy, when referral to an allergist is not feasible. Furthermore, the update addresses availability and concentrations of skin test (ST) reagents, ST and drug provocation test (DPT) protocols, and diagnostic algorithms and administration of alternative BL in allergic subjects. Specifically, distinct diagnostic algorithms are suggested depending on risk stratification of the patient into high and low risk based on the morphology and chronology of the reaction, immediate (ie, occurring within 1-6 hours after the last administered dose) or nonimmediate (ie, occurring more than 1 hour after the initial drug administration), and the reaction severity. Regarding the allergy workup, the main novelty of this document is the fact that in some low-risk nonimmediate reactions ST are not mandatory, especially in children. For DPT, further studies are necessary to provide data supporting the standardization of protocols, especially of those regarding nonimmediate reactions, for which there is currently no consensus. © 2019 EAACI and John Wiley and Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd.