-
Frontiers in Public Health 2023The COVID-19 pandemic focused attention on healthcare disparities and inequities faced by individuals within marginalized and structurally disadvantaged groups in the...
INTRODUCTION
The COVID-19 pandemic focused attention on healthcare disparities and inequities faced by individuals within marginalized and structurally disadvantaged groups in the United States. These individuals bore the heaviest burden across this pandemic as they faced increased risk of infection and difficulty in accessing testing and medical care. Individuals experiencing housing insecurity are a particularly vulnerable population given the additional barriers they face. In this scoping review, we identify some of the barriers this high-risk group experienced during the early days of the pandemic and assess novel solutions to overcome these barriers.
METHODS
A scoping review was performed following PRISMA-Sc guidelines looking for studies focusing on COVID-19 testing among individuals experiencing housing insecurity. Barriers as well as solutions to barriers were identified as applicable and summarized using qualitative methods, highlighting particular ways that proved effective in facilitating access to testing access and delivery.
RESULTS
Ultimately, 42 studies were included in the scoping review, with 143 barriers grouped into four categories: lack of cultural understanding, systemic racism, and stigma; medical care cost, insurance, and logistics; immigration policies, language, and fear of deportation; and other. Out of these 42 studies, 30 of these studies also suggested solutions to address them.
CONCLUSION
A paucity of studies have analyzed COVID-19 testing barriers among those experiencing housing insecurity, and this is even more pronounced in terms of solutions to address those barriers. Expanding resources and supporting investigators within this space is necessary to ensure equitable healthcare delivery.
Topics: Humans; United States; COVID-19 Testing; COVID-19; Pandemics; Housing Instability; Emigration and Immigration
PubMed: 37841714
DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1237066 -
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 -
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 -
The World Allergy Organization Journal Sep 2023Beta-lactams (BLs) are the most prescribed antibiotics, being the most frequent cause of drug allergy. However, the association between BL allergy and genetic variations...
IMPORTANCE
Beta-lactams (BLs) are the most prescribed antibiotics, being the most frequent cause of drug allergy. However, the association between BL allergy and genetic variations is still unclear.
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to summarize the genetic effects of BL-induced hypersensitivity using existing evidence.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Medline, Scopus, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library from inception to September 15, 2022 with no language restriction. Genetic association studies investigating genetic variant/polymorphism and risk of drug-induced hypersensitivity reactions among individuals receiving BL-antibiotics were included. We excluded studies of acute interstitial nephritis, drug-induced liver injury, serum sickness, and isolated drug fever. Data were comprehensively synthesized and quality of study were assessed using STrengthening the Reporting of Genetic Association Studies (STREGA). The record screening, extraction and quality assessment were performed by two reviewers and discussions were made to resolve discrepancies. The effects of each variant were pooled and evaluated by modified Venice criteria.
RESULTS
A total of 9276 records were identified, and 31 studies were eligible for inclusion. Twenty-seven were candidate-gene association studies (5416 cases and 5939 controls), while the others were next-generation sequencing (NGS) or genome-wide association studies (GWASs) (119 838 cases and 1 487 111 controls). Forty-nine polymorphisms were identified and most of them located in allergic reaction pathways. Meta-analyses of 15 candidate variants in a mixture of both immediate and non-immediate reactions revealed weak genetic effects of rs1801275 (8 studies; n = 1,560; odd ratio 0.73; 95%CI: 0.57-0.93) and rs20541 (4 studies; n = 1,482; odd ratio 1.34; 95%CI: 1.07-1.68) in and , respectively. Results from GWASs and NGS identified, and confirmed associations in HLA regions including and .
CONCLUSION
Our study summarized genetic evidence influencing BL-induced hypersensitivity and estimated effects of potential variants. We postulated that the genomic studies provide better insights to the mechanism of reactions and suggest potential effects of HLA Class II variants. However, results were inconsistent and unable to generalize in different settings. Further high-throughput studies with a well-defined function, epigenetic interaction, incorporated with clinical factors, would be beneficial for risk identification in BL-induced hypersensitivity.
PubMed: 37780578
DOI: 10.1016/j.waojou.2023.100816 -
Farmacia Hospitalaria : Organo Oficial... 2024To analyze the role played by the clinical pharmacist and its impact in antibiotic stewardship facing suspected allergy to beta-lactam antibiotics. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To analyze the role played by the clinical pharmacist and its impact in antibiotic stewardship facing suspected allergy to beta-lactam antibiotics.
METHOD
We performed two different independent bibliographic searches. A total of 35 articles were found, and the final number included in the study was 12. We analysed the articles and collected variables of efficacy, safety and applicability of evaluation tools applied to patients with suspected allergy to beta-lactams. Also, the variation in the consumption and prescription profile of alternative antibiotics was analyzed.
RESULTS
The selected studies analysed questionnaires, allergy delabeling, intradermal tests and oral challenge tests performed by pharmacists. Significant differences in the efficacy endpoint were found in 4 studies in favour of pharmaceutical intervention. In the study of Kwiatkowski et al, cefazolin use increased in surgical patients after pharmacist intervention (65 vs. 28%; p < 0.01). In a quasi-experimental study, the mean defined daily dose of aztreonam and the mean days of therapy per 1000 patients/day decreased (21.23 vs 9.05, p <0.01) and (8.79-4.24, p = 0.016), pre and post-intervention, respectively, increasing antibiotic de-escalations (p ≤ 0.01). In another quasi-experimental study, the prescription of restricted-use antibiotics decreased (42.5% vs. 17.9%, p < 0.01) and the use of pre-surgical prophylactic antibiotics alternative to cefazolin (81.9% vs 55.9%, p<0.01) in another study. Other study showed that the mean time per interview was 5.2 minutes per patient. No adverse events were reported in any study.
CONCLUSION
The pharmacist intervention in the evaluation of the patient with suspected allergy to beta-lactams is effective, safe and feasible to implement on daily clinical practice. The standardization of protocols to clarify the history of allergies and development of evaluation tools represent simple screenings to perform delabelling or refer to the Immunoallergology service, improving penicilins use and reducing the need for second line antibiotics. More studies are needed to standardize the desensitization tests made by pharmacists. However, despite these results, the involvement and leadership of the pharmacist in this area is limited and constitutes a future challenge for the profession.
Topics: Humans; beta-Lactams; Pharmacists; Cefazolin; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Drug Hypersensitivity; Hypersensitivity; Penicillins
PubMed: 37696709
DOI: 10.1016/j.farma.2023.07.017 -
JAMA Oct 2023Gefapixant represents an emerging therapy for patients with refractory or unexplained chronic cough. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Gefapixant represents an emerging therapy for patients with refractory or unexplained chronic cough.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of gefapixant for the treatment of adults with refractory or unexplained chronic cough.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science from November 2014 to July 2023.
STUDY SELECTION
Two reviewers independently screened for parallel and crossover randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that compared, in patients with refractory or unexplained chronic cough, either gefapixant with placebo, or 2 or more doses of gefapixant with or without placebo.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Two reviewers independently extracted data. A frequentist random-effects dose-response meta-analysis or pairwise meta-analysis was used for each outcome. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach was used to rate the certainty in whether patients would perceive the effects as important (greater than the minimal important difference [MID]) or small (less than the MID).
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Cough frequency (measured using the VitaloJAK cough monitor; MID, 20%), cough severity (measured using the 100-mm visual analog scale [VAS]; higher score is worse; MID, 30 mm), cough-specific quality of life (measured using the Leicester Cough Questionnaire [LCQ]; score range, 3 [maximal impairment] to 21 [no impairment]; MID, 1.3 points), treatment-related adverse events, adverse events leading to discontinuation, and taste-related adverse events.
RESULTS
Nine RCTs including 2980 patients were included in the primary analysis. Compared with placebo, gefapixant (45 mg twice daily) had small effects on awake cough frequency (17.6% reduction [95% CI, 10.6%-24.0%], moderate certainty), cough severity on the 100-mm VAS (mean difference, -6.2 mm [95% CI, -4.1 to -8.4]; high certainty), and cough-specific quality of life on the LCQ (mean difference, 1.0 points [95% CI, 0.7-1.4]; moderate certainty). Compared with placebo, gefapixant (45 mg twice daily) probably caused an important increase in treatment-related adverse events (32 more per 100 patients [95% CI, 13-64 more], moderate certainty) and taste-related adverse events (32 more per 100 patients [95% CI, 22-46 more], high certainty). High-certainty evidence suggests that gefapixant (15 mg twice daily) had small effects on taste-related adverse events (6 more per 100 patients [95% CI, 5-8 more]).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Compared with placebo, gefapixant (45 mg orally twice daily) led to modest improvements in cough frequency, cough severity, and cough-specific quality of life but increased taste-related adverse events.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Cough; Pyrimidines; Quality of Life; Sulfonamides; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Treatment Outcome; Chronic Disease; Taste
PubMed: 37694849
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2023.18035 -
Internal Medicine (Tokyo, Japan) Apr 2024Objective Drug fever is defined as a fever that temporally coincides with the start of a culprit drug and disappears after discontinuation of the drug. It is a common... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Objective Drug fever is defined as a fever that temporally coincides with the start of a culprit drug and disappears after discontinuation of the drug. It is a common cause of nosocomial fever, which refers to a fever that develops beyond the first 48 h after hospital admission. However, the exact prevalence of drug fever among cases of nosocomial fever is unclear, as is the variation in prevalence depending on the clinical setting and most common causative drugs. Methods PubMed MEDLINE, Dialog EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov were systematically searched. Studies that reported the prevalence of drug fever in patients with nosocomial fever were included. Two of the four reviewers conducted independent assessments of the inclusion, data extraction, and quality. Pooled adjusted odds ratios were generated using a random-effects model and presented with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results Fifteen meta-analysis from 15 studies were included. Ten studies did not report the definition of drug fever or excluded febrile patients who were admitted to the hospital within 24-48 h. The pooled prevalence of drug fever among cases of nosocomial fever was 3.0% (95% CI, 0.6-6.8%), which was largely consistent across the settings, except for at oriental medicine hospital. Only four studies reported the causative agents, and antibiotics were the most frequently reported. Conclusions The prevalence of drug fever is low in patients with nosocomial fever. Clinicians should recognize that drug fever is a diagnosis of exclusion, even in cases of nosocomial fever.
Topics: Humans; Cross Infection; Drug Fever; Prevalence; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Hospitals
PubMed: 37690845
DOI: 10.2169/internalmedicine.2322-23 -
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 -
The Journal of Allergy and Clinical... Dec 2023Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a common skin condition with multiple topical treatment options, but uncertain comparative effects. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a common skin condition with multiple topical treatment options, but uncertain comparative effects.
OBJECTIVE
We sought to systematically synthesize the benefits and harms of AD prescription topical 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, CINAHL, LILACS, ICTRP, and GREAT databases to September 5, 2022, for randomized trials addressing AD topical treatments. 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. We classified topical corticosteroids (TCS) using 7 groups-group 1 being most potent. This review is registered in the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/q5m6s).
RESULTS
The 219 included trials (43,123 patients) evaluated 68 interventions. With high-certainty evidence, pimecrolimus improved 6 of 7 outcomes-among the best for 2; high-dose tacrolimus (0.1%) improved 5-among the best for 2; low-dose tacrolimus (0.03%) improved 5-among the best for 1. With moderate- to high-certainty evidence, group 5 TCS improved 6-among the best for 3; group 4 TCS and delgocitinib improved 4-among the best for 2; ruxolitinib improved 4-among the best for 1; group 1 TCS improved 3-among the best for 2. These interventions did not increase harm. Crisaborole and difamilast were intermediately effective, but with uncertain harm. Topical antibiotics alone or in combination may be among the least effective. To maintain AD control, group 5 TCS were among the most effective, followed by tacrolimus and pimecrolimus.
CONCLUSIONS
For individuals with AD, pimecrolimus, tacrolimus, and moderate-potency TCS are among the most effective in improving and maintaining multiple AD outcomes. Topical antibiotics may be among the least effective.
Topics: Humans; Dermatitis, Atopic; Tacrolimus; Network Meta-Analysis; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Dermatologic Agents; Asthma; Eczema; Anti-Bacterial Agents
PubMed: 37678572
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2023.08.030 -
Journal of Investigational Allergology... Dec 2023Impairment of smell is more commonly related to chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) than without, especially when asthma and/or NSAID-exacerbated... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Impairment of smell is more commonly related to chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) than without, especially when asthma and/or NSAID-exacerbated respiratory disease and type 2 inflammation are also present. Therapeutic options include intranasal and systemic corticosteroids, surgery, and, more recently, biological therapy. We summarize current knowledge on the effect of biologics on olfaction in patients with CRSwNP.
METHODS
We performed a systematic search of the PubMed and Cochrane databases from January 2001 to June 2022. The inclusion criteria were as follows: adult patients with CRS treated with dupilumab, omalizumab, mepolizumab, benralizumab, or reslizumab; and studies published in English reporting outcomes for sense of smell based on psychophysical and/or subjective tools. We excluded reports that did not assess CRSwNP, loss of smell evaluated with a method other than those accepted in the inclusion criteria, review articles, and expert opinions. No funding was received.
RESULTS
Dupilumab has demonstrated rapid and sustained long-term improvement in smell in clinical trials and in real life. Omalizumab improves smell at 24 weeks. This improvement is maintained in the long-term, although it is not clinically relevant. Mepolizumab and benralizumab improved smell in the long term based on a subjective scale. No studies examining the improvement in smell in patients with CRSwNP treated with reslizumab were found. Indirect comparisons by meta-analysis consistently conclude that dupilumab is the most effective biologic for improving impaired sense of smell.
CONCLUSION
Dupilumab seems to be more efficacious for improving the sense of smell than omalizumab, mepolizumab, and benralizumab.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Nasal Polyps; Omalizumab; Smell; Rhinosinusitis; Chronic Disease; Sinusitis; Rhinitis; Quality of Life
PubMed: 37669083
DOI: 10.18176/jiaci.0939