-
Clinical Reviews in Allergy & Immunology Oct 2023Taxanes in the treatment of cancer are associated with a significant incidence of hypersensitivity reactions, which may preclude their use in patients in need of first... (Review)
Review
Taxanes in the treatment of cancer are associated with a significant incidence of hypersensitivity reactions, which may preclude their use in patients in need of first line therapy. Drug desensitization induces transient immunological tolerance and has allowed the reintroduction of taxanes in highly allergic patients. Increase the knowledge of hypersensitivity reactions (HSR) during the administration of taxanes. A systematic review regarding the safety and efficacy of rapid drug desensitization (RDD) for taxanes HSR. The study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, was registered in PROSPERO(CRD42021242324) and a comprehensive search was conducted in Medline, Embase, Web of Science and Scopus databases. 25 studies encompassing 10 countries were identified and 976 patients with initial HSR to paclitaxel (n = 707) and docetaxel (n = 284), that underwent a total of 2,396 desensitizations. The most common symptoms were cutaneous (74.6%) with paclitaxel and respiratory (72.6%) with docetaxel. Severe initial hypersensitivity reactions including anaphylaxis occurred in 39.6% and 13% of paclitaxel and docetaxel cases respectively and during the first (87.4%) or second exposure (81.5%). Patients tolerated well RDD and breakthrough reactions (BTR) occurred in 32.2% of paclitaxel-treated patients and in 20.6% of docetaxel treated patients. Premedications included corticosteroids, antihistamines and leukotriene receptor antagonists. The most commonly used protocol was the BWH 3 bags 12 steps, all protocols showed a success rate between 95-100%, with no reported deaths. RDD is a safe and effective procedure in patients with HSR to taxanes and protocols should be standardized for wide range implementation.
PubMed: 37589840
DOI: 10.1007/s12016-023-08968-y -
The Journal of Allergy and Clinical... Nov 2023To improve β-lactam delabeling outcomes, we need to understand current practice and the evidence base regarding its outcomes, safety, and impact.
BACKGROUND
To improve β-lactam delabeling outcomes, we need to understand current practice and the evidence base regarding its outcomes, safety, and impact.
OBJECTIVES
We sought to assess the existing published evidence reporting on the effectiveness of penicillin allergy testing and delabeling.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review of studies reporting β-lactam delabeling practices and outcomes after testing, including β-lactam use and patient understanding of the delabeling result. Searches of the PubMed, Scopus, and Embase databases; clinical trial registries; and websites of professional organizations were conducted. Data were extracted from the included studies in duplicate, with a third extraction if discrepancies remained.
RESULTS
We included 284 publications (covering 98,316 participants); 173 were prospective studies, with no randomized controlled trials. The overall study quality was low. In all, 95.6% of individuals who underwent provocation testing were delabeled. Factors associated with successful delabeling could not be determined because of significant heterogeneity between studies. Anaphylaxis due to testing occurred in 0.3% of participants (95 of 31,667). Subjects who did not undergo skin testing (6,980 patients in 31 studies) before challenge had higher rates of provocation test positivity (8.8% vs 4.1% [ < .0001]) and anaphylaxis (15.9% vs 2.7% [ < .0001]) than those subjects who underwent skin testing (51,607 patients in 177 studies). Six studies (2.1%) followed patients after testing to assess their adherence to prescribing recommendations. In all, 136 participants (20.6%) were actively avoiding β-lactams despite delabeling.
CONCLUSIONS
The available data suggest that penicillin allergy testing is safe and effective in delabeling most individuals, but the evidence base is incomplete and more work is required to assess the role of skin testing and the impact that delabeling is having on prescribing habits.
PubMed: 37781667
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacig.2023.100160 -
Current Allergy and Asthma Reports Dec 2023To analyze and compare the effects of epistaxis treatments for Hereditary Hemorrhagic Telangiectasia (HHT) patients. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE OF REVIEW
To analyze and compare the effects of epistaxis treatments for Hereditary Hemorrhagic Telangiectasia (HHT) patients.
RECENT FINDINGS
Of total of 21 randomized controlled trials (RCT), the data from 15 RCTs (697 patients, 7 treatments: timolol, propranolol, bevacizumab, doxycycline, tacrolimus, estriol/estradiol, and tranexamic acid) were pooled for the meta-analyses while the other 6 studies (treatments: electrosurgical plasma coagulation, KTP laser, postoperative packing, tamoxifen, sclerosing agent, and estriol) were reviewed qualitatively. When compared to placebo, propranolol offered the most improved epistaxis severity score, mean difference (MD), -1.68, 95% confidence interval (95%CI) [-2.80, -0.56] followed by timolol, MD -0.40, 95%CI [-0.79, -0.02]. Tranexamic acid significantly reduced the epistaxis frequency, MD -1.93, 95%CI [-3.58, -0.28]. Other treatments had indifferent effects to placebo. Qualitative analysis highlighted the benefits of tamoxifen and estriol. The adverse events of tranexamic acid, tacrolimus, propranolol, and estradiol were significantly reported. Propranolol, timolol, tranexamic acid, tamoxifen, and estriol were effective treatments which offered benefits to HHT patients in epistaxis management. Adverse events of tranexamic acid, tacrolimus, propranolol, and estradiol should be concerned.
Topics: Humans; Epistaxis; Tranexamic Acid; Timolol; Telangiectasia, Hereditary Hemorrhagic; Propranolol; Network Meta-Analysis; Tacrolimus; Estriol; Estradiol; Tamoxifen
PubMed: 37995018
DOI: 10.1007/s11882-023-01116-8 -
PloS One 2023Biosimilars are increasingly available for the treatment of many serious disorders, however some concerns persist about switching a patient to a biosimilar whose... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Biosimilars are increasingly available for the treatment of many serious disorders, however some concerns persist about switching a patient to a biosimilar whose condition is stable while on the reference biologic. Randomized controlled studies and extension studies with a switch treatment period (STP) to or from a biosimilar and its reference biologic were identified from publicly available information maintained by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). These findings were augmented with data from peer reviewed publications containing information not captured in FDA reviews. Forty-four STPs were identified from 31 unique studies for 21 different biosimilars. Data were extracted and synthesized following PRISMA guidelines. Meta-analysis was conducted to estimate the overall risk difference across studies. A total of 5,252 patients who were switched to or from a biosimilar and its reference biologic were identified. Safety data including deaths, serious adverse events, and treatment discontinuation showed an overall risk difference (95% CI) of -0.00 (-0.00, 0.00), 0.00 (-0.01, 0.01), -0.00 (-0.01, 0.00) across STPs, respectively. Immunogenicity data showed similar incidence of anti-drug antibodies and neutralizing antibodies in patients within a STP who were switched to or from a biosimilar to its reference biologic and patients who were not switched. Immune related adverse events such as anaphylaxis, hypersensitivity reactions, and injections site reactions were similar in switched and non-switched patients. This first systematic review using statistical methods to address the risk of switching patients between reference biologics and biosimilars finds no difference in the safety profiles or immunogenicity rates in patients who were switched and those who remained on a reference biologic or a biosimilar.
Topics: Humans; Biosimilar Pharmaceuticals; Biological Factors; Research Design; Anaphylaxis; Antibodies
PubMed: 37788264
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0292231 -
Clinical and Experimental Allergy :... Aug 2023Asthma control is generally monitored by assessing symptoms and lung function. However, optimal treatment is also dependent on the type and extent of airway... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
Asthma control is generally monitored by assessing symptoms and lung function. However, optimal treatment is also dependent on the type and extent of airway inflammation. Fraction of exhaled Nitric Oxide (FeNO) is a noninvasive biomarker of type 2 airway inflammation, but its effectiveness in guiding asthma treatment remains disputed. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to obtain summary estimates of the effectiveness of FeNO-guided asthma treatment.
DESIGN
We updated a Cochrane systematic review from 2016. Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was used to assess risk of bias. Inverse-variance random-effects meta-analysis was performed. Certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE. Subgroup analyses were performed based on asthma severity, asthma control, allergy/atopy, pregnancy and obesity.
DATA SOURCES
The Cochrane Airways Group Trials Register was searched on 9 May 2023.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effectiveness of a FeNO-guided treatment versus usual (symptom-guided) treatment in adult asthma patients.
RESULTS
We included 12 RCTs (2,116 patients), all showing high or unclear risk of bias in at least one domain. Five RCTs reported support from a FeNO manufacturer. FeNO-guided treatment probably reduces the number of patients having ≥1 exacerbation (OR = 0.61; 95%CI 0.44 to 0.83; six RCTs; GRADE moderate certainty) and exacerbation rate (RR = 0.67; 95%CI 0.54 to 0.82; six RCTs; moderate certainty), and may slightly improve Asthma Control Questionnaire score (MD = -0.10; 95%CI -0.18 to -0.02, six RCTs; low certainty), however, this change is unlikely to be clinically important. An effect on severe exacerbations, quality of life, FEV1, treatment dosage and FeNO values could not be demonstrated. There were no indications that effectiveness is different in subgroups of patients, although evidence for subgroup analysis was limited.
CONCLUSIONS
FeNO-guided asthma treatment probably results in fewer exacerbations but may not have clinically important effects on other asthma outcomes.
Topics: Female; Pregnancy; Adult; Humans; Asthma; Nitric Oxide; Inflammation
PubMed: 37293870
DOI: 10.1111/cea.14359 -
BMJ Open Nov 2023Head-to-head clinical trials are common in psoriasis, but scarce in psoriatic arthritis (PsA), making treatment comparisons between therapeutic classes difficult. This... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
Head-to-head clinical trials are common in psoriasis, but scarce in psoriatic arthritis (PsA), making treatment comparisons between therapeutic classes difficult. This study describes the relative effectiveness of targeted synthetic (ts) and biologic (b) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) through network meta-analysis (NMA).
DESIGN
A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted in January 2020. Bayesian NMAs were conducted to compare treatments on Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI) and 36-item Short Form (SF-36) Health Survey including Mental Component Summary (MCS) and Physical Component Summary (PCS) scores.
DATA SOURCES
Ovid MEDLINE (including Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and Daily),Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Phase III randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating patients with PsA receiving tsDMARDS, bDMARDs or placebo were included in the SLR; there was no restriction on outcomes.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Two independent researchers reviewed all citations. Data for studies meeting all inclusion criteria were extracted into a standardised Excel-based form by one reviewer and validated by a second reviewer. A third reviewer was consulted to resolve any discrepancies, as necessary. Risk of bias was assessed using the The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence clinical effectiveness quality assessment checklist.
RESULTS
In total, 26 RCTs were included. For HAQ-DI, SF-36 PCS and SF-36 MCS scores, intravenous tumour necrosis factor (TNF) alpha inhibitors generally ranked higher than most other classes of therapies available to treat patients with PsA. For almost all outcomes, several interleukin (IL)-23, IL-17A, subcutaneous TNF and IL-12/23 agents offered comparable improvement, while cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4, phosphodiesterase-4 and Janus kinase inhibitors often had the lowest efficacy.
CONCLUSIONS
While intravenous TNFs may provide some improvements in PROs relative to several other tsDMARDs and bDMARDs for the treatment of patients with PsA, differences between classes of therapies across outcomes were small.
Topics: Humans; Arthritis, Psoriatic; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Network Meta-Analysis; Antirheumatic Agents; Patient Reported Outcome Measures
PubMed: 37940157
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-062306 -
Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Feb 2024Macrolides and tetracyclines are antibiotics that have a range of anti-inflammatory properties beyond their microbial capabilities. Although these antibiotics have been... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Macrolides and tetracyclines are antibiotics that have a range of anti-inflammatory properties beyond their microbial capabilities. Although these antibiotics have been in widespread use, the long-term safety profiles are limited. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials that compared macrolides or tetracyclines with placeboes to provide long-term safety information. We searched Medline and EMBASE from inception to October 2022 and identified studies that reported study drug-related death, serious adverse events (SAEs), or withdrawal rates, and common adverse effects of each drug. Relative risk (RR) and number needed to harm were calculated. Of the 52 randomized clinical trials included, there are 3151 participants on doxycycline, 2519 participants on minocycline, 3049 participants on azithromycin, 763 participants on clarithromycin, 262 participants on erythromycin, and 100 participants on roxithromycin. There was no death related to any study drugs and rates of SAE were not significantly different from placebo in any drug. Overall withdrawal rates were slightly higher than placebo in doxycycline (RR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.12-1.52) and minocycline (RR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.15-1.46). Withdrawal rates due to adverse events were higher in doxycycline (RR, 2.82; 95% CI, 1.88-4.22), minocycline (RR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.09-1.98), and azithromycin (RR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.13-2.08). Gastrointestinal disturbances are the most common tolerable adverse effects for every drug. Photosensitivity and rash are the second most common adverse effects for doxycycline and minocycline. We found no evidence that long-term use up to 2 years of macrolides or tetracyclines was associated with increased risk of SAEs.
Topics: Humans; Macrolides; Azithromycin; Doxycycline; Minocycline; Anti-Bacterial Agents
PubMed: 37751595
DOI: 10.1002/jcph.2358 -
Current Opinion in Allergy and Clinical... Aug 2023The aim of this study was to review the practice of general practitioners (GPs) in regard to the diagnosis and management of drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) to...
PURPOSE OF REVIEW
The aim of this study was to review the practice of general practitioners (GPs) in regard to the diagnosis and management of drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) to identify major challenges and to facilitate the development of decision support tools to GPs confronted with DHRs patients.
RECENT FINDINGS
DHRs are still a challenge in the GPs clinical practice, which implies difficulties in clinical decisions and referral to allergy specialists.
SUMMARY
DHRs can range from mild to severe and even life-threatening. Drugs are the main cause of anaphylaxis deaths in most countries. Most DHRs are firstly seen by GPs, paediatricians or emergency doctors. However, our systematic review demonstrated difficulties in differentiating DHRs from other drug side effects. Most DHRs epidemiological data are from hospital and emergency departments, which may not reflect the real-life experience in primary care. GPs should be aware of the alert signs of DHRs: the involvement of other systems beyond the skin and/or atypical skin/ mucosal involvement, which mandated immediate referral to an emergency department. Data still stress difficulties in the recognition of DHRs clinical manifestations and highlight the need for decision aids to support their management by GPs. Structured clinical history and clinical examination are key diagnostic tools. Reasons for referring to allergy specialists based on the literature are to investigate cause, to undergo specific procedure, such as desensitization and to identify well tolerated, alternative drugs.
Topics: Humans; Quality Improvement; Drug Hypersensitivity; Anaphylaxis; Delivery of Health Care; Primary Health Care
PubMed: 37357792
DOI: 10.1097/ACI.0000000000000924 -
The Lancet. Infectious Diseases May 2024Targeted next-generation sequencing (NGS) can rapidly and simultaneously detect mutations associated with resistance to tuberculosis drugs across multiple gene targets....
BACKGROUND
Targeted next-generation sequencing (NGS) can rapidly and simultaneously detect mutations associated with resistance to tuberculosis drugs across multiple gene targets. The use of targeted NGS to diagnose drug-resistant tuberculosis, as described in publicly available data, has not been comprehensively reviewed. We aimed to identify targeted NGS assays that diagnose drug-resistant tuberculosis, determine how widely this technology has been used, and assess the diagnostic accuracy of these assays.
METHODS
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science Core Collection, Global Index Medicus, Google Scholar, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for published and unpublished reports on targeted NGS for drug-resistant tuberculosis from Jan 1, 2005, to Oct 14, 2022, with updates to our search in Embase and Google Scholar until Feb 13, 2024. Studies eligible for the systematic review described targeted NGS approaches to predict drug resistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis infections using primary samples, reference strain collections, or cultured isolates from individuals with presumed or confirmed tuberculosis. Our search had no limitations on study type or language, although only reports in English, German, and French were screened for eligibility. For the meta-analysis, we included test accuracy studies that used any reference standard, and we assessed risk of bias using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. The primary outcomes for the meta-analysis were sensitivity and specificity of targeted NGS to diagnose drug-resistant tuberculosis compared to phenotypic and genotypic drug susceptibility testing. We used a Bayesian bivariate model to generate summary receiver operating characteristic plots and diagnostic accuracy measures, overall and stratified by drug and sample type. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42022368707.
FINDINGS
We identified and screened 2920 reports, of which 124 were eligible for our systematic review, including 37 review articles and 87 reports of studies collecting samples for targeted NGS. Sequencing was mainly done in the USA (14 [16%] of 87), western Europe (ten [11%]), India (ten [11%]), and China (nine [10%]). We included 24 test accuracy studies in the meta-analysis, in which 23 different tuberculosis drugs or drug groups were assessed, covering first-line drugs, injectable drugs, and fluoroquinolones and predominantly comparing targeted NGS with phenotypic drug susceptibility testing. The combined sensitivity of targeted NGS across all drugs was 94·1% (95% credible interval [CrI] 90·9-96·3) and specificity was 98·1% (97·0-98·9). Sensitivity for individual drugs ranged from 76·5% (52·5-92·3) for capreomycin to 99·1% (98·3-99·7) for rifampicin; specificity ranged from 93·1% (88·0-96·3) for ethambutol to 99·4% (98·3-99·8) for amikacin. Diagnostic accuracy was similar for primary clinical samples and culture isolates overall and for rifampicin, isoniazid, ethambutol, streptomycin, and fluoroquinolones, and similar after excluding studies at high risk of bias (overall sensitivity 95·2% [95% CrI 91·7-97·1] and specificity 98·6% [97·4-99·3]).
INTERPRETATION
Targeted NGS is highly sensitive and specific for detecting drug resistance across panels of tuberculosis drugs and can be performed directly on clinical samples. There is a paucity of data on performance for some currently recommended drugs. The barriers preventing the use of targeted NGS to diagnose drug-resistant tuberculosis in high-burden countries need to be addressed.
FUNDING
National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and Swiss National Science Foundation.
PubMed: 38795712
DOI: 10.1016/S1473-3099(24)00263-9 -
Current Opinion in Allergy and Clinical... Aug 2023Serum tryptase, a mast cell marker, provides clues for the mechanism, severity, and management of drug hypersensitivity induced by immunoglobulin E dependent or...
PURPOSE OF REVIEW
Serum tryptase, a mast cell marker, provides clues for the mechanism, severity, and management of drug hypersensitivity induced by immunoglobulin E dependent or independent mast cell activation.
RECENT FINDINGS
The interpretation of serum tryptase levels has been challenged during the last 2 years by major advances in tryptase genetics and their rapid incorporation into clinical practice. On the contrary, new pathophysiological insight into nonmast cell-dependent immediate hypersensitivity has been gained.
SUMMARY
This review provides up-to-date information on the pathophysiology and recommended use and interpretation of tryptase in the context of drug hypersensitivity reactions as a function of their endotype.
Topics: Humans; Tryptases; Anaphylaxis; Drug Hypersensitivity; Mast Cells; Hypersensitivity, Immediate
PubMed: 37357783
DOI: 10.1097/ACI.0000000000000916