Allergy Asthma and Clinical Immunology最新文献

Background: Dupilumab, omalizumab, and mepolizumab are the three biologics currently approved for use in CRSwNP in Canada. Despite evidence of efficacy, their cost-effectiveness, which is a key factor influencing prescribing patterns, has not yet been compared to each other.

Methods: A cost-effectiveness model using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) was constructed using a Decision Tree Markov analysis. A third-party healthcare payer perspective and a 10-year time horizon was used. A willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of 50,000 Canadian dollars (CAD) per QALY was used to determine cost-effectiveness. Dupilumab, omalizumab, and mepolizumab were each compared to each other.

Results: Omalizumab was the most cost-effective biologic using current estimates of cost and efficacy in CRSwNP. Using omalizumab as a baseline, dupilumab had an ICER of $235,305/QALY. Mepolizumab was dominated by omalizumab and dupilumab at the current drug prices and estimates of efficacy. Sensitivity analyses determined that when increasing the WTP threshold to $150,000/QALY, dupilumab became cost-effective compared to omalizumab in 22.5% of simulation scenarios. Additionally, altering dosing frequency had a significant effect on cost-effectiveness.

Conclusion: When comparing the relative cost-effectiveness of biologics in recalcitrant CRSwNP, omalizumab currently appears to be the most cost-effective option. Future reductions in drug prices, adjustments to currently approved dosing regimens, better patient selection, and improvements in sinus surgery outcomes will challenge the current cost-effectiveness models and necessitate reassessment as treatments for CRSwNP continue to evolve.

Background: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic inflammatory skin disease that affects children and adults. Poor treatment adherence in AD requires interventions to promote self-management; patient education in chronic diseases is key to self-management. Many international AD management guidelines published to date include a recommendation for educating patients as part of their treatment but there are no formal recommendations on how to deliver this knowledge. MAIN: We performed a scoping review to map the existing literature on patient education practices in AD and to highlight the clinical need for improved patient education in AD. The literature search was performed with the online databases MEDLINE, Embase, Grey Matters, ClinicalTrails.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). The search strategy yielded 388 articles. Of the 388 articles screened, 16 studies met the eligibility criteria, and the quantitative data was summarized by narrative synthesis. The majority of studies were randomized controlled trials conducted in Europe, Asia and North America. Since 2002, there have been limited studies evaluating patient education in the treatment of AD. Frequent education methods used included group-based educational programs, educational pamphlets, individual consultations and online resources. Education was most commonly directed at caregivers and their children. Only one study compared the efficacy of different education methods. In all included studies, the heterogenous nature of outcome measures and study design limited the consistency of results. Despite the heterogeneity of studies, patient education was shown to improve quality of life (QoL), disease severity and psychological outcomes in AD patients.

Conclusion: This scoping review highlights that patient education is effective in a variety of domains relevant to AD treatment. Further comparative studies and randomized trials with longer-term follow-up are needed to provide validated and consistent patient education recommendations for AD; these may depend on age and population.

Background: Penicillin allergy is the most commonly reported drug allergy in the US. Despite evidence demonstrating that up to 90% of labels are incorrect, scalable interventions are not well established. As part of a larger mixed methods investigation, we conducted a qualitative study to describe the barriers to implementing a risk-based penicillin de-labeling protocol within a single site Veteran's hospital.

Methods: We conducted individual and group interviews with multidisciplinary inpatient and outpatient healthcare teams. The interview guides were developed using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to explore workflows and contextual factors influencing identification and evaluation of patients with penicillin allergy. Three researchers iteratively developed the codebook based on TDF domains and coded the data using thematic analysis.

Results: We interviewed 20 clinicians. Participants included three hospitalists, five inpatient pharmacists, one infectious disease physician, two anti-microbial stewardship pharmacists, four primary care providers, two outpatient pharmacists, two resident physicians, and a nurse case manager for the allergy service. The factors that contributed to barriers to penicillin allergy evaluation and de-labeling were classified under six TDF domains; knowledge, skills, beliefs about capabilities, beliefs about consequences, professional role and identity, and environmental context and resources. Participants from all groups acknowledged the importance of penicillin de-labeling. However, they lacked confidence in their skills to perform the necessary evaluations, such as test dose challenges. The fear of inducing an allergic reaction and adding further complexity to patient care exacerbated their reluctance to de-label patients. The lack of ownership of de-labeling initiative was another significant obstacle in establishing consistent clinical workflows. Additionally, heavy workloads, competing priorities, and ease of access to alternative antibiotics prevented the prioritization of tasks related to de-labeling. Space limitations and nursing staff shortages added to challenges in outpatient settings.

Conclusion: Our findings demonstrated that barriers to penicillin allergy de-labeling fall under multiple behavioral domains. Better role clarification, opportunities to develop necessary skills, and dedicated resources are needed to overcome these barriers. Future interventions will need to employ a systemic approach that addresses each of the behavioral domains influencing penicillin allergy de-labeling with stakeholder engagement of the inpatient and outpatient health care teams.

Background: Current management of food protein-induced enterocolitis syndrome (FPIES) involves strict avoidance of the offending food for 12-18 months, followed by oral food challenge (OFC) under physician supervision. OFCs are resource-intensive and there is a lack of a universal standardized protocol for FPIES. Prolonged avoidance may increase the risk of IgE-mediated allergy, particularly in atopic patients. Food ladders have shown success in promoting accelerated tolerance in patients with IgE-mediated allergy. Our case series evaluated the safety of use of the Canadian Egg Ladder in patients with mild-to-moderate FPIES to egg.

Methods: From May 2020 to November 2021, patients with mild-to-moderate FPIES to egg, defined as no history of lethargy or intravenous fluid administration, were started on the Canadian Egg Ladder. Instructions for advancing up the ladder were identical to using the Canadian Egg Ladder in patients with IgE-mediated allergy. Patients were followed every 3-6 months, at which time information was collected regarding progression up the ladder, symptoms while on treatment and interventions required. Treating allergists completed a survey to capture baseline demographic characteristics and prior tolerance to egg. Descriptive statistics were analyzed using MS Excel.

Results: Twenty-one patients with mild-to-moderate FPIES were started on the Canadian Egg Ladder. Median age at initiation of the ladder was 10 months (IQR, 9-11). Nineteen (90.5%) patients completed the ladder, tolerating a serving size amount of cooked egg, over a median duration of 7 month (IQR, 4-9 months). Four patients (19.0%) had mild symptoms including vomiting (9.5%), pallor (9.5%), belching (4.8%), irritability (4.8%) and small spit up (4.8%). In three of the four patients, symptoms were the result of accidental exposure to a higher step of the ladder. There were no reports of lethargy. No patients required health care presentation or intravenous fluid administration. No patients discontinued the ladder.

Conclusions: The Canadian Egg Ladder can safely guide the dietary advancement of egg-containing foods in patients with mild-to-moderate FPIES to egg, without the need for prolonged avoidance and resource-intensive OFCs.

Background: Activated phosphoinositide3-kinase (PI3K) δ syndrome 1 (APDS1) is a novel inborn errors of immunity (IEIs) caused by heterozygous gain of function mutations in PI3Kδ catalytic p110δ (PIK3CD). APDS1 has a spectrum of clinical manifestations. Recurrent respiratory infections, lymphoproliferation, hepatosplenomegaly, hyper-IgM syndrome and autoimmunity are the common symptoms of this disease.

Case presentation: Patient 1 presented with recurrent respiratory infections, hepatosplenomegaly and hyper-IgM syndrome. Patient 2 developed early onset systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE)-like disease with resistant thrombocytopenia. c.3061 G > A and c.2314G > A variants in the PIK3CD gene were detected by whole exome sequencing in two patients respectively. c.2314G > A variant in PIK3CD gene of patient 2 is a newly report. After genetic diagnosis, two patients received sirolimus treatment and sirolimus alleviated clinical manifestations, including hepatosplenomegaly in patient 1 and thrombocytopenia in patient 2.

Conclusion: Genetics diagnosis should be considered in patients with complicated clinical manifestations with no or insufficient response to the conventional therapies. If whole exome sequencing suggests a variant in PIK3CD gene, sirolimus may relieve hepatosplenomegaly and resistant thrombocytopenia. This is the first report of c.2314G > A variant in PIK3CD gene.

Background: One of the main barriers to vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 is the fear of developing hypersensitivity reactions to any of its components. Although these reactions are very rare, it is necessary to establish an effective protocol to detect patients at risk of developing them. The aim of this study was to evaluate hypersensitivity reactions in vaccinated patients in order to allow or not to complete the vaccination protocol.

Methods: Descriptive and cross-sectional study in which patients with suspected hypersensitivity to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines were evaluated. All patients underwent skin prick test (SPT) and/or intradermal test (IDT) with the vaccines and their excipients. In patients with positive IDT with the vaccine, a histopathological and immunohistochemical study was performed by skin biopsy. A basophil activation test (BAT) and a lymphoblastic transformation test (LTT) were also performed.

Results: Sixteen patients with suspected hypersensitivity to SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (12 received Comirnaty^®, 3 received Vaxzevria^®, and 1 received Spikevax^®) were evaluated. Half had immediate hypersensitivity reactions and half had delayed reactions. All SPTs to excipients and vaccines were negative. IDTs with all excipients were negative. IDTs with vaccines were positive in 11 patients and negative in 5. The histological and immunohistochemical study of the two selected patients with positive IDT with vaccine showed T-lymphocyte involvement. BAT and LTT were negative in both cases. The vaccination protocol could be completed in 7 of 16 patients (44%) studied. The remaining 9 patients did not receive the second dose: 5 because vaccination was not required and 4 because they refused to be vaccinated.

Conclusions: Thanks to the allergological and immunohistochemical study, the vaccination protocol could be completed in about half of the patients who presented suspected hypersensitivity reactions to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. IDTs with vaccines could be a valuable method for assessing the immunogenicity of the vaccines.