-
The Journal of Allergy and Clinical... Apr 2023A growing number of studies have shown encouraging results with omalizumab (OMA) as monotherapy and as an adjunct to oral immunotherapy (OMA+OIT) in patients with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
A growing number of studies have shown encouraging results with omalizumab (OMA) as monotherapy and as an adjunct to oral immunotherapy (OMA+OIT) in patients with single/multiple food allergies.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of OMA or OMA+OIT in patients with immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated food allergy.
METHODS
An extensive literature search (inception to December 31, 2020) was performed to identify randomized, controlled, and observational studies that assessed OMA as monotherapy or OMA+OIT in patients with IgE-mediated food allergy. The outcomes were an increase in tolerated dose of foods, successful desensitization, sustained unresponsiveness, immunological biomarkers, severity of allergic reactions to food, quality of life (QoL), and safety. A P less than .05 was considered significant.
RESULTS
In total, 36 studies were included. The OMA monotherapy (vs pre-OMA) significantly increased the tolerated dose of multiple foods; increased the threshold of tolerated dose for milk, egg, wheat, and baked milk; improved QoL; and reduced food-induced allergic reactions (all P < .01). The OMA+OIT significantly increased the tolerated dose of multiple foods (vs placebo and pre-OMA), desensitization (vs placebo+OIT and pre-OMA) (all P ≤ .01), and improved QoL (vs pre-OMA) and immunoglobulin G4 levels (both P < .01). No major safety concerns were identified.
CONCLUSIONS
In IgE-mediated food allergy, OMA can help patients consume multiple foods and allow for food dose escalation. As an adjunct to OIT, OMA can also support high-dose desensitization and higher maintenance doses. Further studies are warranted to empirically evaluate the effect of OMA and confirm these findings.
Topics: Humans; Animals; Omalizumab; Quality of Life; Immunoglobulin E; Desensitization, Immunologic; Administration, Oral; Food Hypersensitivity; Allergens; Milk
PubMed: 36529441
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaip.2022.11.036 -
Lancet (London, England) Jun 2019Oral immunotherapy is an emerging experimental treatment for peanut allergy, but its benefits and harms are unclear. We systematically reviewed the efficacy and safety... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Oral immunotherapy is an emerging experimental treatment for peanut allergy, but its benefits and harms are unclear. We systematically reviewed the efficacy and safety of oral immunotherapy versus allergen avoidance or placebo (no oral immunotherapy) for peanut allergy.
METHODS
In the Peanut Allergen immunotherapy, Clarifying the Evidence (PACE) systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials, Latin American & Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, WHO's Clinical Trials Registry Platform, US Food and Drug Administration, and European Medicines Agency databases from inception to Dec 6, 2018, for randomised controlled trials comparing oral immunotherapy versus no oral immunotherapy for peanut allergy, without language restrictions. We screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias independently in duplicate. Main outcomes included anaphylaxis, allergic or adverse reactions, epinephrine use, and quality of life, meta-analysed by random effects. We assessed certainty (quality) of evidence by the GRADE approach. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42019117930.
RESULTS
12 trials (n=1041; median age across trials 8·7 years [IQR 5·9-11·2]) showed that oral immunotherapy versus no oral immunotherapy increased anaphylaxis risk (risk ratio [RR] 3·12 [95% CI 1·76-5·55], I=0%, risk difference [RD] 15·1%, high-certainty), anaphylaxis frequency (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 2·72 [1·57-4·72], I=0%, RD 12·2%, high-certainty), and epinephrine use (RR 2·21 [1·27-3·83], I=0%, RD 4·5%, high-certainty) similarly during build-up and maintenance (p=0·92). Oral immunotherapy increased serious adverse events (RR 1·92 [1·00-3·66], I=0%, RD 5·7%, moderate-certainty), and non-anaphylactic reactions (vomiting: RR 1·79 [95%CI 1·35-2·38], I=0%, high-certainty; angioedema: 2·25 [1·13-4·47], I=0%, high-certainty; upper tract respiratory reactions: 1·36 [1·02-1·81], I=0%, moderate-certainty; lower tract respiratory reactions: 1·55 [0·96-2·50], I=28%, moderate-certainty). Passing a supervised challenge, a surrogate for preventing out-of-clinic reactions, was more likely with oral immunotherapy (RR 12·42 [95% CI 6·82-22·61], I=0%, RD 36·5%, high-certainty). Quality of life was not different between groups (combined parents and self report RR 1·21 [0·87-1·69], I=0%, RD 0·03%, low-certainty). Findings were robust to IRR, trial sequential, subgroup, and sensitivity analyses.
INTERPRETATION
In patients with peanut allergy, high-certainty evidence shows that available peanut oral immunotherapy regimens considerably increase allergic and anaphylactic reactions over avoidance or placebo, despite effectively inducing desensitisation. Safer peanut allergy treatment approaches and rigorous randomised controlled trials that evaluate patient-important outcomes are needed.
FUNDING
None.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Child; Child, Preschool; Desensitization, Immunologic; Female; Humans; Male; Peanut Hypersensitivity; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31030987
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)30420-9 -
JAMA Surgery Apr 2021Cefazolin is the preoperative antibiotic of choice because it is safer and more efficacious than second-line alternatives. Surgical patients labeled as having penicillin... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Cefazolin is the preoperative antibiotic of choice because it is safer and more efficacious than second-line alternatives. Surgical patients labeled as having penicillin allergy are less likely to prophylactically receive cefazolin and more likely to receive clindamycin or vancomycin, which results in higher rates of surgical site infections.
OBJECTIVE
To examine the incidence of dual allergy to cefazolin and natural penicillins.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE/PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase were searched without language restrictions for relevant articles published from database inception until July 31, 2020.
STUDY SELECTION
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, a search of MEDLINE/PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase was performed for articles published from database inception to July 31, 2020, for studies that included patients who had index allergies to a natural penicillin and were tested for tolerability to cefazolin or that included patients who had index allergies to cefazolin and were tested for tolerability to a natural penicillin. A total of 3228 studies were identified and 2911 were screened for inclusion.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Data were independently extracted by 2 authors. Bayesian meta-analysis was used to estimate the frequency of allergic reactions.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Dual allergy to cefazolin and a natural penicillin.
RESULTS
Seventy-seven unique studies met the eligibility criteria, yielding 6147 patients. Cefazolin allergy was identified in 44 participants with a history of penicillin allergy, resulting in a dual allergy meta-analytical frequency of 0.7% (95% credible interval [CrI], 0.1%-1.7%; I2 = 74.9%). Such frequency was lower for participants with unconfirmed (0.6%; 95% CrI, 0.1%-1.3%; I2 = 54.3%) than for those with confirmed penicillin allergy (3.0%; 95% CrI, 0.01%-17.0%; I2 = 88.2%). Thirteen studies exclusively assessed surgical patients (n = 3884), among whom 0.7% (95% CrI, 0%-3.3%; I2 = 85.5%) had confirmed allergy to cefazolin. Low heterogeneity was observed for studies of patients with unconfirmed penicillin allergy who had been exposed to perioperative cefazolin (0.1%; 95% CrI, 0.1%-0.3%; I2 = 13.1%). Penicillin allergy was confirmed in 16 participants with a history of cefazolin allergy, resulting in a meta-analytical frequency of 3.7% (95% CrI, 0.03%-13.3%; I2 = 64.4%). The frequency of penicillin allergy was 4.4% (95% CrI, 0%-23.0%; I2 = 75%) for the 8 studies that exclusively assessed surgical patients allergic to cefazolin.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
These findings suggest that most patients with a penicillin allergy history may safely receive cefazolin. The exception is patients with confirmed penicillin allergy in whom additional care is warranted.
Topics: Humans; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Cefazolin; Drug Hypersensitivity; Incidence; Penicillins; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 33729459
DOI: 10.1001/jamasurg.2021.0021 -
Journal of Crohn's & Colitis Sep 2015Administration of infliximab is associated with a well-recognised risk of infusion reactions. Lack of a mechanism-based rationale for their prevention, and absence of... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Administration of infliximab is associated with a well-recognised risk of infusion reactions. Lack of a mechanism-based rationale for their prevention, and absence of adequate and well-controlled studies, has led to the use of diverse empirical administration protocols. The aim of this study is to perform a systematic review of the evidence behind the strategies for preventing infusion reactions to infliximab, and for controlling the reactions once they occur.
METHODS
We conducted extensive search of electronic databases of MEDLINE [PubMed] for reports that communicate various aspects of infusion reactions to infliximab in IBD patients.
RESULTS
We examined full texts of 105 potentially eligible articles. No randomised controlled trials that pre-defined infusion reaction as a primary outcome were found. Three RCTs evaluated infusion reactions as a secondary outcome; another four RCTs included infusion reactions in the safety evaluation analysis; and 62 additional studies focused on various aspects of mechanism/s, risk, primary and secondary preventive measures, and management algorithms. Seven studies were added by a manual search of reference lists of the relevant articles. A total of 76 original studies were included in quantitative analysis of the existing strategies.
CONCLUSIONS
There is still paucity of systematic and controlled data on the risk, prevention, and management of infusion reactions to infliximab. We present working algorithms based on systematic and extensive review of the available data. More randomised controlled trials are needed in order to investigate the efficacy of the proposed preventive and management algorithms.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Drug Hypersensitivity; Humans; Inflammatory Bowel Diseases; Infliximab; Infusions, Intravenous
PubMed: 26092578
DOI: 10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjv096 -
Allergy May 2020Five biologicals have been approved for severe eosinophilic asthma, a well-recognized phenotype. Systematic reviews (SR) evaluated the efficacy and safety of...
Efficacy and safety of treatment with biologicals (benralizumab, dupilumab, mepolizumab, omalizumab and reslizumab) for severe eosinophilic asthma. A systematic review for the EAACI Guidelines - recommendations on the use of biologicals in severe asthma.
Five biologicals have been approved for severe eosinophilic asthma, a well-recognized phenotype. Systematic reviews (SR) evaluated the efficacy and safety of benralizumab, dupilumab, mepolizumab, omalizumab and reslizumab (alphabetical order) compared to standard of care for severe eosinophilic asthma. PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched to identify RCTs and health economic evaluations, published in English. Critical and important asthma-related outcomes were evaluated for each of the biologicals. The risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence were assessed using GRADE. 19 RCTs (three RCTs for benralizumab, three RCTs for dupilumab, three RCTs for mepolizumab, five RCTs for omalizumab and five RCTs for reslizumab), including subjects 12 to 75 years old (except for omalizumab including also subjects 6-11 years old), ranging from 12 to 56 weeks were evaluated. All biologicals reduce exacerbation rates with high certainty of evidence: benralizumab incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.53 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.72), dupilumab (IRR) 0.43 (95% CI 0.32 to 0.59), mepolizumab IRR 0.49 (95% CI 0.38 to 0.66), omalizumab (IRR) 0.56 (95% CI 0.40 to 0.77) and reslizumab (IRR) 0.46 (95% CI 0.37 to 0.58). Benralizumab, dupilumab and mepolizumab reduce the daily dose of oral corticosteroids (OCS) with high certainty of evidence. All evaluated biologicals probably improve asthma control, QoL and FEV , without reaching the minimal important difference (moderate certainty). Benralizumab, mepolizumab and reslizumab slightly increase drug-related adverse events (AE) and drug-related serious AE (low to very low certainty of evidence). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life year value is above the willingness to pay threshold for all biologicals (moderate certainty). Potential savings are driven by decrease in hospitalizations, emergency and primary care visits. There is high certainty that all approved biologicals reduce the rate of severe asthma exacerbations and for benralizumab, dupilumab and mepolizumab for reducing OCS. There is moderate certainty for improving asthma control, QoL, FEV . More data on long-term safety are needed together with more efficacy data in the paediatric population.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Anti-Asthmatic Agents; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Asthma; Biological Products; Child; Humans; Middle Aged; Omalizumab; Quality of Life; Young Adult
PubMed: 32034960
DOI: 10.1111/all.14221 -
The Journal of Allergy and Clinical... Dec 2023Atopic dermatitis (AD) is an inflammatory skin condition with multiple systemic treatments and uncertainty regarding their comparative impact on AD outcomes. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Atopic dermatitis (AD) is an inflammatory skin condition with multiple systemic treatments and uncertainty regarding their comparative impact on AD outcomes.
OBJECTIVE
We sought to systematically synthesize the benefits and harms of AD systemic treatments.
METHODS
For the 2023 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology and American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters AD guidelines, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and GREAT databases from inception to November 29, 2022, for randomized trials addressing systemic treatments and phototherapy for AD. Paired reviewers independently screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Random-effects network meta-analyses addressed AD severity, itch, sleep, AD-related quality of life, flares, and harms. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach informed certainty of evidence ratings. This review is registered in the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/e5sna).
RESULTS
The 149 included trials (28,686 patients with moderate-to-severe AD) evaluated 75 interventions. With high-certainty evidence, high-dose upadacitinib was among the most effective for 5 of 6 patient-important outcomes; high-dose abrocitinib and low-dose upadacitinib were among the most effective for 2 outcomes. These Janus kinase inhibitors were among the most harmful in increasing adverse events. With high-certainty evidence, dupilumab, lebrikizumab, and tralokinumab were of intermediate effectiveness and among the safest, modestly increasing conjunctivitis. Low-dose baricitinib was among the least effective. Efficacy and safety of azathioprine, oral corticosteroids, cyclosporine, methotrexate, mycophenolate, phototherapy, and many novel agents are less certain.
CONCLUSIONS
Among individuals with moderate-to-severe AD, high-certainty evidence demonstrates that high-dose upadacitinib is among the most effective in addressing multiple patient-important outcomes, but also is among the most harmful. High-dose abrocitinib and low-dose upadacitinib are effective, but also among the most harmful. Dupilumab, lebrikizumab, and tralokinumab are of intermediate effectiveness and have favorable safety.
Topics: Humans; Dermatitis, Atopic; Network Meta-Analysis; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Eczema; Asthma; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37678577
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2023.08.029 -
World Journal of Gastroenterology Sep 2017Autoimmune hepatitis is a rare chronic inflammatory liver disease, affecting all ages, characterised by elevated transaminase and immunoglobulin G levels, positive... (Review)
Review
Autoimmune hepatitis is a rare chronic inflammatory liver disease, affecting all ages, characterised by elevated transaminase and immunoglobulin G levels, positive autoantibodies, interface hepatitis at liver histology and good response to immunosuppressive treatment. If untreated, it has a poor prognosis. The aim of this review is to summarize the evidence for standard treatment and to provide a systematic review on alternative treatments for adults and children. Standard treatment is based on steroids and azathioprine, and leads to disease remission in 80%-90% of patients. Alternative first line treatment has been attempted with budesonide or cyclosporine, but their superiority compared to standard treatment remains to be demonstrated. Second-line treatments are needed for patients not responding or intolerant to standard treatment. No randomized controlled trials have been performed for second-line options. Mycophenolate mofetil is the most widely used second-line drug, and has good efficacy particularly for patients intolerant to azathioprine, but has the major disadvantage of being teratogenic. Only few and heterogeneous data on cyclosporine, tacrolimus, everolimus and sirolimus are available. More recently, experience with the anti-tumour necrosis factor-alpha infliximab and the anti-CD20 rituximab has been published, with ambivalent results; these agents may have severe side-effects and their use should be restricted to specialized centres. Clinical trials with new therapeutic options are ongoing.
Topics: Adult; Age Factors; Azathioprine; Child; Complementary Therapies; Drug Hypersensitivity; Glucocorticoids; Hepatitis, Autoimmune; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Liver; Treatment Outcome; Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha
PubMed: 28970719
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v23.i33.6030 -
The Journal of Allergy and Clinical... Jan 2023Atopic dermatitis (AD, eczema) is driven by a combination of skin barrier defects, immune dysregulation, and extrinsic stimuli such as allergens, irritants, and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Atopic dermatitis (AD, eczema) is driven by a combination of skin barrier defects, immune dysregulation, and extrinsic stimuli such as allergens, irritants, and microbes. The role of environmental allergens (aeroallergens) in triggering AD remains unclear.
OBJECTIVE
We systematically synthesized evidence regarding the benefits and harms of allergen immunotherapy (AIT) for AD.
METHODS
As part of the 2022 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology/American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters AD Guideline update, we searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, LILACS, Global Resource for Eczema Trials, and Web of Science databases from inception to December 2021 for randomized controlled trials comparing subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT), sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT), and/or no AIT (placebo or standard care) for guideline panel-defined patient-important outcomes: AD severity, itch, AD-related quality of life (QoL), flares, and adverse events. Raters independently screened, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias in duplicate. We synthesized intervention effects using frequentist and Bayesian random-effects models. The GRADE approach determined the quality of evidence.
RESULTS
Twenty-three randomized controlled trials including 1957 adult and pediatric patients sensitized primarily to house dust mite showed that add-on SCIT and SLIT have similar relative and absolute effects and likely result in important improvements in AD severity, defined as a 50% reduction in SCORing Atopic Dermatitis (risk ratio [95% confidence interval] 1.53 [1.31-1.78]; 26% vs 40%, absolute difference 14%) and QoL, defined as an improvement in Dermatology Life Quality Index by 4 points or more (risk ratio [95% confidence interval] 1.44 [1.03-2.01]; 39% vs 56%, absolute difference 17%; both outcomes moderate certainty). Both routes of AIT increased adverse events (risk ratio [95% confidence interval] 1.61 [1.44-1.79]; 66% with SCIT vs 41% with placebo; 13% with SLIT vs 8% with placebo; high certainty). AIT's effect on sleep disturbance and eczema flares was very uncertain. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were consistent with the main findings.
CONCLUSIONS
SCIT and SLIT to aeroallergens, particularly house dust mite, can similarly and importantly improve AD severity and QoL. SCIT increases adverse effects more than SLIT. These findings support a multidisciplinary and shared decision-making approach to optimally managing AD.
Topics: Adult; Animals; Humans; Child; Dermatitis, Atopic; Quality of Life; Bayes Theorem; Desensitization, Immunologic; Pyroglyphidae; Hypersensitivity; Asthma; Allergens; Sublingual Immunotherapy; Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus; Eczema
PubMed: 36191689
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2022.09.020 -
Clinical Reviews in Allergy & Immunology Aug 2023Vernal keratoconjunctivitis (VKC) is a chronic, bilateral corneal and conjunctival problem which typically presents in young individuals. VKC is characterized by... (Review)
Review
Vernal keratoconjunctivitis (VKC) is a chronic, bilateral corneal and conjunctival problem which typically presents in young individuals. VKC is characterized by itching, photophobia, white mucous discharge, lacrimation, foreign body sensation, and pain due to corneal involvement of shield ulcers. Vernal keratoconjunctivitis is categorized within ocular diseases. The diagnosis is clinical, as no sure biomarkers pathognomonic of the disease have yet been identified. The VKC therapy relies on different types of drugs, from antihistamines and topical steroids to cyclosporine or tacrolimus eye drops. In extremely rare cases, there is also the need for surgical treatment for the debridement of ulcers, as well as for advanced glaucoma and cataracts, caused by excessive prolonged use of steroid eye drops. We performed a systematic review of the literature, according to PRISMA guideline recommendations. We searched the PubMed database from January 2016 to June 2023. Search terms were Vernal, Vernal keratoconjunctivitis, and VKC. We initially identified 211 articles. After the screening process, 168 studies were eligible according to our criteria and were included in the review. In this study, we performed a systematic literature review to provide a comprehensive overview of currently available diagnostic methods, management of VKC, and its treatments.
Topics: Humans; Conjunctivitis, Allergic; Ulcer; Cyclosporine; Tacrolimus; Ophthalmic Solutions
PubMed: 37658939
DOI: 10.1007/s12016-023-08970-4 -
The Journal of Allergy and Clinical... 2019There is no recent systematic review on the risk of cross-reactivity to cephalosporins and carbapenems in penicillin-allergic patients despite many new studies on the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
There is no recent systematic review on the risk of cross-reactivity to cephalosporins and carbapenems in penicillin-allergic patients despite many new studies on the subject. All past reviews have several limitations such as not including any patient with a T-cell-mediated penicillin allergy.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the risk of cross-reactivity to cephalosporins and carbapenems in patients with a proven IgE- or T-cell-mediated penicillin allergy. To measure the association between R1 side chain similarity on cephalosporins and penicillins and the risk of cross-reactivity.
METHODS
MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched from January 1980 to March 2019. Studies had to include at least 10 penicillin-allergic subjects whose allergy had been confirmed by a positive skin test (ST) or drug provocation test (DPT) result. Cross-reactivity had to be assessed to at least 1 cephalosporin or carbapenem through ST or DPT. Both random-effects and fixed-effect models were used to combine data. A bioinformatic model was used to quantify the similarity between R1 side chains.
RESULTS
Twenty-one observational studies on cephalosporin cross-reactivity involving 1269 penicillin-allergic patients showed that the risk of cross-reactivity varied with the degree of similarity between R1 side chains: 16.45% (95% CI, 11.07-23.75) for aminocephalosporins, which share an identical side chain with a penicillin (similarity score = 1), 5.60% (95% CI, 3.46-8.95) for a few cephalosporins with an intermediate similarity score (range, 0.563-0.714), and 2.11% (95% CI, 0.98-4.46) for all those with low similarity scores (below 0.4), irrespective of cephalosporin generation. The higher risk associated with aminocephalosporins was observed whether penicillin allergy was IgE- or T-cell-mediated. Eleven observational studies on carbapenem cross-reactivity involving 1127 penicillin-allergic patients showed that the risk of cross-reactivity to any carbapenem was 0.87% (95% CI, 0.32-2.32).
CONCLUSIONS
Although it remains possible that these meta-analyses overestimated the risk of cross-reactivity, clinicians should consider the increased risk of cross-reactivity associated with aminocephalosporins, and to a lesser extent with intermediate-similarity-score cephalosporins, compared with the very low risk associated with low-similarity-score cephalosporins and all carbapenems when using beta-lactams in patients with a suspected or proven penicillin allergy.
Topics: Carbapenems; Cephalosporins; Cross Reactions; Drug Hypersensitivity; Humans; Penicillins
PubMed: 31170539
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaip.2019.05.038