I thank Dres. Alnaes and Helnes Bergen for their stimulating comment on my medical algorithm on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Radiocontrast Media Hypersensitivity.1 In their comment, they raised attention to the possible addition of desensitization to radiocontrast media (RCM) management, which was not depicted in the algorithm.2 I have been well aware of several reports on desensitization and have already discussed them in a previous paper, however commented there that “successful desensitization of RCM has been reported for immediate hypersensitivity reactions to RCM, but it is only used anectodically” and concluded not to include this procedure into the algorithm.3In addition to the two papers on desensitization to RCM cited by Dr. Alaes, also a handful other cases have been published, some of them older. To my knowledge, at least as far as I can access these case reports, in none of these patients a proper allergy diagnosis and management has been performed and in most, if not all of these patients, desensitization probably was unnecessary. In the described cases, skin testing has not been performed or was even negative indicating a higher probability for a non-allergic immediate hypersensitivity reaction (IHR), in the history before desensitization was performed in several cases the RCM was not changed, but the same not tolerated RCM was given again and radiologists in vain relied on premedication to prevent recurrent attacks, and no skin test-negative RCM was identified and used. None of the cases published convinced me of the need for desensitization. Performing the examination with a skin test-negative RCM would with a high probability be successful.4 I would expect the success of desensitization was rather due to changing to a different isoosmolar RCM (and probably not to adding premedication) than the desensitization procedure itself, as alone changing the implicated RCM to another one in one study reduced the risk of recurrent IHR by 67.1% (odds ratio: 0.329; P = 0.001), whereas steroid premedication did not show protective effects.5Our group of European Network on Drug Allergy experts have highlighted that rapid desensitization is a procedure that can be used to provide a temporary tolerance to a first-line drug when no alternative is available.6 This implies for RCM hypersensitivity that using a skin-test-negative RCM for the next examination as an alternative drug is next step and not immediate desensitization. One problem with desensitization is that too many doctors employ it uncritically and without prior proper allergy workup, best with drug provocation test. The high rate of successful desensitizations without prior confirmation of drug hypersensitivity in the literature is in part explained by the fact that many of those patients would not have reacted anyway. I have yet to find convincing evidence to add desensitization as a standard therapeutic option to the RCM management algorithm.Having said this, I am eagerly following up the literature on RCM desensitization with great interest to be prepared, should I encounter an own patient, who would react severely to an alternative skin test-negative RCM after following the algorithm. Until now, colleagues and I have not met such a patient, however, I would seriously consider desensitization as an option in such a situation. Thus, I thank Dres. Alnaes and Helsen Bergen for bringing up that interesting topic for discussion.
This systematic review evaluates the efficacy, safety and economic impact of dupilumabcompared to standard of care for uncontrolled moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD). Pubmed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library were searched for RCTs and health economic evaluations. Critical and important AD-related outcomes were considered. The risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence were assessed using GRADE. Seven RCTs including 1845 subjects > 12 years treated with dupilumab16 to 52 weeks were evaluated. For adultsthere is high certainty that dupilumabdecreasesSCORAD (MD -30,72; 95%CI -34,65% to -26,79%) and EASI-75 (RR 3.09; 95%CI 2.45 to 3.89), pruritus (RR 2.96; 95%CI 2.37 to 3.70), rescue medication (RR 3.46; 95%CI 2.79 to 4.30), sleep disturbance (MD -7.29; 95%CI -8.23 to -6.35), anxiety/depression (MD -3.08; 95% CI -4.41 to -1.75) and improves quality of life (MD -4.80; 95% CI -5.55 to -4.06). The efficacy for adolescents is similar. Dupilumab-related adverse events (AEs) slightly increase (low certainty). The evidence for dupilumab-related serious AE is uncertain. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio ranged from 28,500 £ (low certainty) to 124,541 US$ (moderate certainty).More data on long term safety are needed both for children and adults, together with more efficacy data in the paediatric population.
Background This systematic review used the GRADE approach to compile evidence to inform an anaphylaxis guideline from the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI). Methods We searched five bibliographic databases from 1946 to 20 April 2020 for studies about the diagnosis, management and prevention of anaphylaxis. We included 50 studies with 18,449 participants: 29 randomised controlled trials, seven controlled clinical trials, seven consecutive case series and seven case-control studies. Findings were summarised narratively because studies were too heterogeneous to conduct meta-analysis. Results It is unclear whether the NIAID/FAAN criteria or Brighton case definition are valid for immediately diagnosing anaphylaxis due to the very low certainty of evidence. Adrenaline is the cornerstone of first-line emergency management of anaphylaxis but, due to ethical constraints, little robust research has assessed its effectiveness . Newer models of adrenaline autoinjectors may slightly increase the proportion of people correctly using the devices and reduce time to administration. Face-to-face training for laypeople may slightly improve anaphylaxis knowledge and competence in using autoinjectors. Adrenaline prophylaxis prior to snake bite anti-venom may reduce anaphylaxis but the impact of prophylactic corticosteroids and antihistamines is uncertain. There was insufficient evidence about the impact of other anaphylaxis management strategies. Conclusions Anaphylaxis is a potentially life-threatening condition but, due to practical and ethical challenges, there is a paucity of robust evidence about how to diagnose and manage it.
This systematic review evaluates the efficacyand safety of omalizumab for chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU). Pubmed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library were searched for RCTs. Critical and important CSU-related outcomes were considered. The risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence were assessed using GRADE. Ten RCTs including 1620 subjects aged 12 to 75 years old treated with omalizumab for 16 to 40 weeks were evaluated. Omalizumab 150 mg: does not result in clinically meaningful improvement(high certainty) of the urticaria activity score (UAS)7 (mean difference (MD) -5; 95%CI -7.75 to -2.25) and the itch severity score(ISS)7 (MD -2.15; 95% CI -3.2 to -1.1); does not increase (moderate certainty) quality of life (QoL) (Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI); MD -2.01; 95%CI -3.22 to -0.81); decreases (moderate certainty) rescue medication use (MD -1.68; 95%CI -2.95 to -0.4). Omalizumab 300 mg:results in clinically meaningful improvements(moderate certainty)of the UAS7 (MD -11.05; 95%CI -12.87 to -9.24), theISS7 (MD -4.45; 95%CI -5.39 to -3.51), and QoL (high certainty)(DLQI; MD -4.03; 95% CI -5.56 to -2.5); decreases (moderate certainty) rescue medication use (MD -2.04; 95%CI -3.19 to -0.88) and drug-related serious AEs (RR 0.77; 95%CI 0.20 to 2.91).
Immediate and non-immediate hypersensitivity reactions to iodinated contrast media (ICM) have been reported to occur in a frequency of about 0.5-3% of patients receiving non-ionic ICM. The diagnosis and management of these patients is controversial among guidelines published by various national and international scientific societies, with recommendations ranging from avoidance or premedication to drug provocation test. This position paper aims to give recommendations for the management of patients with ICM hypersensitivity reactions and analyze controversies in this area. Skin tests are recommended as the initial step for diagnosing patients with immediate and non-immediate hypersensitivity reactions; besides, they may also help guide on tolerability of alternatives. Drug provocation test is the gold-standard; although, as it is a risky procedure, the decision for performing it needs to be taken based on a risk-benefit analysis. Another source of controversy is the role of in vitro tests for diagnosis and pretreatment for preventing reactions.
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a respiratory tract infection caused by a novel human coronavirus, the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, leads to a wide spectrum of clinical manifestations ranging from asymptomatic cases to patients with mild and severe symptoms, with or without pneumonia. Given the huge influence caused by the overwhelming COVID-19 pandemic affecting over three million people worldwide, a wide spectrum of drugs is considered for the treatment in the concept of repurposing and off-label use. There is no knowledge about the diagnosis and clinical management of the drug hypersensitivity reactions that can potentially occur during the disease. This review brings together all the published information about the diagnosis and management of drug hypersensitivity reactions due to current and candidate off-label drugs and highlights relevant recommendations. Furthermore, it gathers all the dermatologic manifestations reported during the disease for guiding the clinicians to establish a better differential diagnosis of drug hypersensitivity reactions in the course of the disease.