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.
Introduction The COVID‐19 pandemic dramatically disrupts health care around the globe. The impact of the pandemic on chronic urticaria (CU) and its management are largely unknown. Aim To understand how CU patients are affected by the COVID‐19 pandemic; how specialists alter CU patient management; and the course of CU in patients with COVID‐19. Materials and Methods Our cross‐sectional, international, questionnaire‐based, multicenter UCARE COVID‐CU study assessed the impact of the pandemic on patient consultations, remote treatment, changes in medications, and clinical consequences. Results The COVID‐19 pandemic severely impairs CU patient care, with less than 50% of the weekly numbers of patients treated as compared to before the pandemic. Reduced patient referrals and clinic hours were the major reasons. Almost half of responding UCARE physicians were involved in COVID‐19 patient care, which negatively impacted on the care of urticaria patients. The rate of face‐to‐face consultations decreased by 62%, from 90% to less than half, whereas the rate of remote consultations increased by more than 600%, from one in 10 to more than two thirds. Cyclosporine and systemic corticosteroids, but not antihistamines or omalizumab, are used less during the pandemic. CU does not affect the course of COVID‐19, but COVID‐19 results in CU exacerbation in one of three patients, with higher rates in patients with severe COVID‐19. Conclusions The COVID‐19 pandemic brings major changes and challenges for CU patients and their physicians. The long‐term consequences of these changes, especially the increased use of remote consultations, require careful evaluation.
The adherence rate to SCIT in our study was relatively high, in contrast to previous real-life data. Results of our study indicated that a close relationship between allergists and their patients during SCIT and the follow-up period in the same center improved the outcome of SCIT.
In SLE patients, MetS was associated with CVD and both increased with disease duration. Patients who developed MetS and/or CVD had increased cumulative organ damage. Certain clinical features of SLE and the presence of aPL were also associated with CVD. There was a significant protective effect of HCQ from CVD. The prevention of MetS and long-term use of HCQ may be beneficial in improving the prognosis of SLE.
The latest ENDA classification for NSAID hypersensitivity is generally a practical and useful instrument for clinicians. We only point out that anaphylaxis with different NSAIDs can be seen in a small group of patients.
Background Cold urticaria (ColdU), that is, the occurrence of wheals or angioedema in response to cold exposure, is classified into typical and atypical forms. The diagnosis of typical ColdU relies on whealing in response to local cold stimulation testing (CST). It can also manifest with cold‐induced anaphylaxis (ColdA). We aimed to determine risk factors for ColdA in typical ColdU. Methods An international, cross‐sectional study COLD‐CE was carried out at 32 urticaria centers of reference and excellence (UCAREs). Detailed history was taken and CST with an ice cube and/or TempTest® performed. ColdA was defined as an acute cold‐induced involvement of the skin and/or visible mucosal tissue and at least one of: cardiovascular manifestations, difficulty breathing, or gastrointestinal symptoms. Results Of 551 ColdU patients, 75% (n = 412) had a positive CST and ColdA occurred in 37% (n = 151) of the latter. Cold‐induced generalized wheals, angioedema, acral swelling, oropharyngeal/laryngeal symptoms, and itch of earlobes were identified as signs/symptoms of severe disease. ColdA was most commonly provoked by complete cold water immersion and ColdA caused by cold air was more common in countries with a warmer climate. Ten percent (n = 40) of typical ColdU patients had a concomitant chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU). They had a lower frequency of ColdA than those without CSU (4% vs. 39%, p = .003). We identified the following risk factors for cardiovascular manifestations: previous systemic reaction to a Hymenoptera sting, angioedema, oropharyngeal/laryngeal symptoms, and itchy earlobes. Conclusion ColdA is common in typical ColdU. High‐risk patients require education about their condition and how to use an adrenaline autoinjector.
PurposeReports evaluating diagnosis and cross reactivity of quinolone hypersensitivity have revealed contradictory results. Furthermore, there are no reports investigating the cross-reactivity between gemifloxacin (GFX) and the others. We aimed to detect the usefulness of diagnostic tests of hypersensitivity reactions to quinolones and to evaluate the cross reactivity between different quinolones including the latest quinolone GFX.MethodsWe studied 54 patients (mean age 42.31±10.39 years; 47 female) with 57 hypersensitivity reactions due to different quinolones and 10 nonatopic quinolone tolerable control subjects. A detailed clinical history, skin test (ST), and single-blind placebo-controlled drug provocation test (SBPCDPT), as well as basophil activation test (BAT) and lymphocyte transformation test (LTT) were performed with the culprit and alternative quinolones including ciprofloxacin (CFX), moxifloxacin (MFX), levofloxacin (LFX), ofloxacin (OFX), and GFX.ResultsThe majority (75.9%) of the patients reported immediate type reactions to various quinolones. The most common culprit drug was CFX (52.6%) and the most common reaction type was urticaria (26.3%). A quarter of the patients (24.1%) reacted to SBPCDPTs, although their STs were negative; while false ST positivity was 3.5% and ST/SBPCDPTs concordance was only 1.8%. Both BAT and LTT were not found useful in quinolone hypersensitivity. Cross-reactivity was primarily observed between LFX and OFX (50.0%), whereas it was the least between MFX and the others, and in GFX hypersensitive patients the degree of cross-reactivity to the other quinolones was 16.7%.ConclusionsThese results suggest that STs, BAT, and LTT are not supportive in the diagnosis of a hypersensitivity reaction to quinolone as well as in the prediction of cross-reactivity. Drug provocation tests (DPTs) are necessary to identify both culprit and alternative quinolones.
Objective: Recurrent Angioedema (RAE) is characterized by sudden swelling of mucosal surfaces or deep dermis and is either mast cell-(MMAE) or bradykinin-mediated (BMAE). How patients with BMAE and MMAE differ in terms of disease activity and impact remains largely unknown. Here, we determined validity, reliability, and sensitivity to change of Turkish versions of angioedema activity score (AAS) and quality of life questionnaire (AE-QoL) and used both instruments to investigate and compare patients with BMAE and MMAE.Methods: Turkish versions of AAS28 and AE-QoL were applied to 94 patients with RAE (18-72 years). Patients' global self-assessment of QoL (PGA-QoL), disease activity (PGA-DA-VRS, PatGA-DA-VAS), and 12-Item-Short Form Survey were used at week 4 (visit 2), and week 8 (visit 3). Demographic characteristics, clinical features, and AAS28 and AE-QoL values were compared between 31 patients with BMAE and 63 patients with MMAE.Results: Turkish AAS28 and AE-QoL showed excellent internal consistency, high reproducibility and known-groups validity. Compared to patients with MMAE, BMAE patients were younger (34.6 AE 10.7 vs. 40.7 AE 13.3 years), had longer disease duration (236 AE 178 vs. 51 AE 78 months), high prevalence of family history (63% vs 14%), longer duration of attacks (65 AE 20 vs. 40 AE 25 h), and they were more commonly affected by upper airway angioedema (70% vs 23%). Disease activity (AAS28) was lower (29.3 AE 24.6 vs 55.2 AE 52.9), but AE-QoL was higher (44.2 AE 16.1 vs 34.5 AE 22.5) in BMAE patients as compared to MMAE patients.Conclusions: Patients with BMAE and MMAE have distinct disease characteristics. Recurrent bradykinin-mediated angioedema impacts quality of life more than mast cell-mediated angioedema. The discriminating characteristics of patients with BMAE and MMAE may help to improve the diagnosis and management of patients with RAE.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.