Skin testing as a biomarker in drug allergy.

Despite the significant negative impact drug allergies can have on patient care, the diagnosis is largely based on clinical history, and there are limited diagnostic tests that can be done at the time of a reaction. Biomarkers are needed to improve the diagnosis and the identification of the culprit medication. Skin testing is the most useful biomarker for immediate- and delayed-type reactions available, but it is limited by its low sensitivity. To improve its accuracy and reproducibility, a standardized procedure must be used. For immediate-type reactions, penicillin skin testing is the most widely studied, and it can be used in patients with history of anaphylaxis or recent immunoglobulin E-mediated reaction or for whom there is a significant risk if a reaction were to occur, such as pregnancy. Skin testing is also important in allergy to platinum agents allowing for continued first-line therapy. For delayed-type reactions, patch testing and delayed intradermal testing, used in conjunction with clinical history, can help to improve identification of the culprit medication depending on the type of reaction. Other biomarkers including in vitro testing for specific immunoglobulin E, basophil activation test, lymphocyte transformation test, ELISpot, and genetic factors that increase the likelihood of reaction are under investigation, and they may be most helpful when used in combination with the clinical history and skin testing results.

Severe autoimmune hemolytic anemia following receipt of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine.

BACKGROUND: Large clinical trials have demonstrated the overall safety of vaccines for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). However, reports have emerged of autoimmune phenomena, including vaccine-associated myocarditis, immune thrombocytopenia, and immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia. CASE PRESENTATION: Here we present a novel case of a young woman who developed life-threatening autoimmune hemolytic anemia (AIHA) after her first dose of a SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine. Notably, initial direct antiglobulin testing was negative using standard anti-IgG reagents, which are "blind" to certain immunoglobulin (IgG) isotypes. Further testing using an antiglobulin reagent that detects all IgG isotypes was strongly positive and confirmed the diagnosis of AIHA. The patient required transfusion with 13 units of red blood cells, as well as treatment with corticosteroids, rituximab, mycophenolate mofetil, and immune globulin. CONCLUSION: As efforts to administer SARS-CoV-2 vaccines continue globally, clinicians must be aware of potential autoimmune sequelae of these therapies.

Management of patients with nonaspirin-exacerbated respiratory disease aspirin hypersensitivity reactions.

Because of widespread use, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are the second most common cause of all adverse drug reactions, with hypersensitivity reported in ∼1% of the population. NSAID hypersensitivity can be categorized into five types by the underlying disease, symptoms of reaction, and timing of reaction. These include rhinitis and asthma induced by NSAIDs (also known as aspirin-exacerbated respiratory disease), NSAID-exacerbated cutaneous disease (NECD), urticaria or angioedema induced by multiple NSAIDs, single NSAID-induced reactions, and delayed NSAID reactions. NECD occurs in one-third of patients with chronic urticaria who develop an exacerbation of their urticaria, sometimes with angioedema, typically beginning 30-90 minutes after ingestion of NSAIDs that inhibit cyclooxygenase (COX)-1. In urticaria or angioedema induced by multiple NSAIDs, patients without underlying disease develop urticaria or angioedema 30-90 minutes after ingestion of COX-1-inhibiting NSAIDs including aspirin. Single NSAID-induced reactions are immediate and specific to a single NSAID and are thought to occur because of an IgE-mediated reaction against a specific epitope of the NSAID. Delayed NSAID reactions occur days to weeks after initiating an NSAID. These are T-cell mediated and not amenable to desensitization or rechallenge. Classifying the type of NSAID hypersensitivity is important because many patients with a prior history of urticaria or angioedema induced by multiple NSAIDs will often tolerate aspirin test dose. This would allow the use of an aspirin for primary or secondary prevention in patients with coronary artery disease despite a presumed history of NSAID hypersensitivity.

Evaluation and management of a patient with multiple drug allergies.

Multiple drug allergy syndrome (MDAS) is a clinical diagnosis made in patients with adverse reactions to two or more structurally unrelated drugs with an underlying immune-mediated mechanism causing the reaction. The evaluation of a patient with MDAS begins with a comprehensive drug allergy history and consideration of the underlying immune mechanism for each reaction. Skin testing is a useful diagnostic tool; however, the only validated immediate hypersensitivity skin testing is for penicillin where the antigenic determinants have been identified. Skin testing to most other drugs, although not validated, can be considered using a nonirritating concentration (NIC). In general, skin test positivity using an NIC suggests that the drug should be avoided, but a negative result does not rule out an IgE-mediated allergy. A test dose, also called a drug provocation test, graded oral challenge, or incremental challenge, should be performed when there is a low likelihood of an IgE-mediated mechanism for the reaction. In patients with a recent IgE-mediated hypersensitivity reaction or positive skin testing with no reasonable alternative treatment options, desensitization protocols can be used to allow the patient to safely receive a necessary drug. The evaluation of patients with MDAS is both challenging and time-consuming for the practicing allergist, who must systematically evaluate each reaction to help determine which drugs can be safely used again in the future. The molecular mechanisms and risk factors for this condition remain poorly understood, but research to further understand this condition is ongoing.

Clinical Phenotypes of Immediate First-Dose Reactions to mRNA COVID-19: A Multicenter Latent Class Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Although immediate potentially allergic reactions have been reported after dose 1 of mRNA coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines, comprehensively defined subtypes have not been clearly distinguished. OBJECTIVE: To define distinct clinical phenotypes of immediate reactions after dose 1 of mRNA COVID-19 vaccination, and to assess the relation of clinical phenotype to mRNA COVID-19 vaccine second dose tolerance. METHODS: This retrospective study included patients with 1 or more potentially allergic symptoms or signs within 4 hours of receiving dose 1 of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine and assessed by allergy/immunology specialists from 5 U.S. academic medical centers (January-June 2021). We used latent class analysis-an unbiased, machine-learning modeling method-to define novel clinical phenotypes. We assessed demographic, clinical, and reaction characteristics associated with phenotype membership. Using log-binomial regression, we assessed the relation between phenotype membership and second dose tolerance, defined as either no symptoms or mild, self-limited symptoms resolving with antihistamines alone. A sensitivity analysis considered second dose tolerance as objective signs only. RESULTS: We identified 265 patients with dose-1 immediate reactions with 3 phenotype clusters: (1) Limited or Predominantly Cutaneous, (2) Sensory, and (3) Systemic. A total of 223 patients (84%) received a second dose and 200 (90%) tolerated their second dose. Sensory cluster (all patients had the symptom of numbness or tingling) was associated with a higher likelihood of second dose intolerance, but this finding did not persist when accounting for objective signs. CONCLUSIONS: Three novel clinical phenotypes of immediate-onset reactions after dose 1 of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were identified using latent class analysis: (1) Limited or Predominantly Cutaneous, (2) Sensory, and (3) Systemic. Whereas these clinical phenotypes may indicate differential mechanistic etiologies or associations with subsequent dose tolerance, most individuals proceeding to their second dose tolerated it.

Allergy and immunology interest and exposure among US medical students and residents.

Background: Despite the immense burden of allergic disease, the allergy and immunology (AI) workforce in the United States continues to shrink. Fellowship applications for AI have declined sharply in contrast to those in more popular specialties. Objectives: Here we have sought to evaluate the current level of AI interest and exposure among early trainees in the United States, as well as their perspective on how to improve interest in the field. Methods: An 18-item questionnaire was sent via e-mail list-serve to 2 groups: (1) mostly residents in the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI) with interest in AI and (2) medical students in the American Medical Student Association (AMSA) whose specialty interests were not known. Results: In the AAAAI group, 412 members were surveyed and 70 responses were received. In the AMSA group, 4778 members were surveyed and 47 responses were received. More individuals in the AAAAI group interacted with their AI division than in the AMSA group (73% vs 19% [P < .001]). On average, the AAAAI group would "probably" pursue AI whereas the AMSA group who would "definitely not" do so (P < .001). Almost all of the AMSA group (94%) had heard of AI before, but only 19% of them interacted with AI at their program. Regarding ways to increase interest in AI, the top responses for both groups were clinical exposure via electives and shadowing (a score of 4.69 on a 5-point scale) and didactic exposure via lectures and presentations (a score of 4.29). Conclusions: Our study suggests that increasing AI opportunities for didactics and clinical exposure may lead medical students to develop more interest in pursuing the field. Some strategies are also discussed.

Safety, Outcomes, and Recommendations for Two-Step Outpatient Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drug Challenges.

BACKGROUND: Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) outpatient challenge protocols are not standardized. They vary in clinical practice and can be time- and resource-intensive to perform. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the safety and outcomes of two-step outpatient NSAID challenges to evaluate patients with non-aspirin-exacerbated respiratory disease (AERD)-related NSAID hypersensitivity. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of patients with a history of NSAID allergy who underwent outpatient NSAID challenges under allergist supervision. Individuals with AERD were excluded. Patient demographics, NSAID reaction history, and drug challenge details and outcomes were collected. RESULTS: A total of 249 patients (mean age, 51.6 years; 63.5% female) underwent 262 NSAID challenges. Of these, 224 challenges were negative (85.5%). Thirty challenges resulted in an immediate reaction during the challenge procedure (11.5%) and eight resulted in delayed reactions (3.1%). Three individuals with immediate reactions required treatment with intramuscular epinephrine. Factors associated with a positive NSAID challenge included a prior reaction occurring within 5 years of drug challenge (odds ratio [OR] = 3.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.67-8.44), a prior immediate reaction within 3 hours of NSAID ingestion (OR = 2.45; 95% CI, 1.12-5.57), a history of cross-reactive NSAID hypersensitivity to multiple NSAIDs (OR = 2.97; 95% CI, 1.23-6.91), and the presence of comorbid chronic spontaneous urticaria (OR = 2.95; 95% CI, 1.35-6.41). CONCLUSIONS: More than 85% of two-step non-AERD NSAID drug challenges were negative for an immediate or delayed reaction, which allowed patients to use at least one clinically indicated NSAID. Challenge reactions were generally mild. Two-step NSAID challenge protocols can be safely performed in the outpatient setting.

Response to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Initial Series and Additional Dose Vaccine in Patients With Predominant Antibody Deficiency.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in patients with predominant antibody deficiency (PAD) is associated with high morbidity, yet data regarding the response to SARS-CoV-2 immunization in PAD patients, including additional dose vaccine, are limited. OBJECTIVE: To characterize antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in PAD patients and define correlates of vaccine response. METHODS: We assessed the levels and function of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in 62 PAD patients compared with matched healthy controls at baseline, at 4 to 6 weeks after the initial series of immunization (a single dose of Ad26.COV2.S [Janssen] or two doses of BNT162b2 [Pfizer-BioNTech] or mRNA-1273 [Moderna]), and at 4 to 6 weeks after an additional dose immunization, if received. RESULTS: After the initial series of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, PAD patients had lower mean anti-spike antibody levels compared with matched healthy controls (140.1 vs 547.3 U/mL; P = .02). Patients with secondary PAD (eg, B-cell depletion therapy was used) and those with severe primary PAD (eg, common variable immunodeficiency with autoinflammatory complications) had the lowest mean anti-spike antibody levels. Immune correlates of a low anti-spike antibody response included low CD4+ T helper cells, low CD19+ total B cells, and low class-switched memory (CD27+IgD/M-) B cells. In addition, a low (<100 U/mL) anti-spike antibody response was associated with prior exposure to B-cell depletion therapy, both at any time in the past (odds ratio = 5.5; confidence interval, 1.5-20.4; P = .01) and proximal to vaccination (odds ratio = 36.4; confidence interval, 1.7-791.9; P = .02). Additional dose immunization with an mRNA vaccine in a subset of 31 PAD patients increased mean anti-spike antibody levels (76.3 U/mL before to 1065 U/mL after the additional dose; P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with secondary and severe primary PAD, characterized by low T helper cells, low B cells, and/or low class-switched memory B cells, were at risk for low antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 immunization, which improved after an additional dose vaccination in most patients.

First-Dose mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine Allergic Reactions: Limited Role for Excipient Skin Testing.

BACKGROUND: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention state that a severe or immediate allergic reaction to the first dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine is a contraindication for the second dose. OBJECTIVE: To assess outcomes associated with excipient skin testing after a reported allergic reaction to the first dose of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. METHODS: We identified a consecutive sample of patients with reported allergic reactions after the first dose of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine who underwent allergy assessment with skin testing to polyethylene glycol (PEG) and, when appropriate, polysorbate 80. Skin testing results in conjunction with clinical phenotyping of the first-dose mRNA COVID-19 vaccine reaction guided second-dose vaccination recommendation. Second-dose mRNA COVID-19 vaccine reactions were assessed. RESULTS: Eighty patients with reported first-dose mRNA COVID-19 vaccine allergic reactions (n = 65; 81% immediate onset) underwent excipient skin testing. Of those, 14 (18%) had positive skin tests to PEG (n = 5) and/or polysorbate 80 (n = 12). Skin testing result did not affect tolerance of the second dose in patients with immediate or delayed reactions. Of the 70 patients who received the second mRNA COVID-19 vaccine dose (88%), 62 had either no reaction or a mild reaction managed with antihistamines (89%), but 2 patients required epinephrine treatment. Three patients with positive PEG-3350 intradermal (methylprednisolone) testing tolerated second-dose mRNA COVID-19 vaccination. Refresh Tears caused nonspecific skin irritation. CONCLUSIONS: Most individuals with a reported allergic reaction to the first dose of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, regardless of skin test result, received the second dose safely. More data are needed on the value of skin prick testing to PEG (MiraLAX) in evaluating patients with mRNA COVID-19 vaccine anaphylaxis. Refresh Tears should not be used for skin testing.

Natural Language Processing Combined with ICD-9-CM Codes as a Novel Method to Study the Epidemiology of Allergic Drug Reactions.

BACKGROUND: Allergic drug reaction epidemiologic data are sparse because it remains difficult to identify true cases in large data sets using manual chart review. OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate a novel informatics method based on natural language processing (NLP) in combination with International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) codes that identifies allergic drug reactions in the electronic health record. METHODS: Previously studied and high-yield ICD-9-CM codes were used to screen for possible allergic drug reactions among all inpatients admitted in 2007 and 2008. A random sample was selected for manual chart review to identify true cases of allergic drug reactions. A rule-based NLP algorithm was then developed to identify allergic drug reactions using free-text clinical notes and discharge summaries from the filtered cases. The performance of using manual chart review of ICD-9-CM codes alone was compared with ICD-9-CM codes in combination with NLP. RESULTS: Of 3907 cases identified by ICD-9-CM codes, 725 (19%) were randomly selected for manual chart review; 335 were confirmed as allergic drug reactions, resulting in a positive predictive value (PPV) of 46% (range: 18%-79%) when using ICD-9-CM codes alone. Our NLP algorithm in combination with ICD-9-CM codes achieved a PPV of 86% (range: 69%-100%). Among the 335 confirmed positive cases, NLP identified 259 true cases, resulting in a recall/sensitivity of 77% (range: 26%-100%). Among the 390 negative cases, NLP achieved a specificity of 89% (range: 69%-100%). CONCLUSION: Using NLP with ICD-9-CM codes improved identification of allergic drug reactions. The resulting decrease in manual chart review effort will facilitate large epidemiology studies of this understudied area.

Identification of Inpatient Allergic Drug Reactions Using ICD-9-CM Codes.

BACKGROUND: The study of allergic drug reactions has been limited because of challenges in identifying and confirming cases. OBJECTIVE: To determine the utility of International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) codes for identifying inpatient allergic drug reactions and to compare findings with previous data in the emergency department. METHODS: By reviewing medical records of inpatients with ICD-9-CM codes and E codes suggestive of allergic drug reactions at a large urban academic medical center, we determined codes that yielded the most drug allergy cases and identified culprit drugs. RESULTS: In 2005 and 2010, 3337 and 5282 possible allergic drug reactions during hospitalization were identified and 1367 were reviewed. Allergic drug reactions were found in 409 (30.1%) of the reviewed charts, with 172 (29.7%) in 2005 and 237 (30.5%) in 2010. The codes that identified the highest percentage of true allergic drug reactions were dermatitis due to drug (693.0), allergic urticaria (708), angioneurotic edema (995.1), and anaphylaxis (995.0). Antibiotics were the most common cause (44.4%); however, multiple drug classes were often identified as likely culprit drugs. CONCLUSION: Specific ICD-9-CM codes can identify patients with allergic drug reactions, with antibiotics accounting for almost half of true reactions. Most patients with codes 693.0, 995.1, 708, and 995.0 had allergic drug reactions, with 693.0 as the highest yield code. An aggregate of multiple specific codes consistently identifies a cohort of patients with confirmed allergic drug reactions.

Utility of ICD-9-CM Codes for Identification of Allergic Drug Reactions.

BACKGROUND: The epidemiology of allergic drug reactions is poorly understood due, in large part, to difficulty in identifying true cases in population data sets. Use of International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) codes is a potentially valuable approach that requires formal evaluation. OBJECTIVE: To better understand the utility of ICD-9-CM codes for identification of allergic drug reactions, including the validation of specific codes by chart review. METHODS: We reviewed randomly sampled medical records of patients treated in the emergency department (ED) between January 1, 2001, and December 31, 2006, with ICD-9-CM codes for drug allergy and E codes (E930-949) for adverse drug reactions. RESULTS: During the 6-year period, 11,130 charts were identified by ICD-9-CM and E codes and 1,634 were reviewed. Allergic drug reactions were found in 444 (27%) of the reviewed ED visits. The codes that identified the highest percentage of true allergic drug reactions were dermatitis due to drug (693.0; 87%), adverse reaction to drug (995.2; 52%), and anaphylaxis (995.0; 38%). Patients with both an ICD-9-CM code and an E code had a high likelihood of having an allergic drug reaction (76%). Most allergic drug reactions were attributed to antibiotics (42%), intravenous contrast (7%), and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (6%). The estimated frequency of allergic drug reactions increased from 0.49% of ED visits in 2001 to 0.94% in 2012. CONCLUSIONS: Specific ICD-9-CM and E codes can be used in combination to identify allergic drug reactions. Further study of these codes in the inpatient and outpatient settings is necessary to better understand the utility of diagnosis codes for improving epidemiologic research on drug allergy.

A novel treatment for ocular tumors using membrane FasL vesicles to activate innate immunity and terminate immune privilege.

PURPOSE: Ocular immune privilege promotes tumor growth by hindering the development of innate and adaptive immunity. A prior study showed that ocular tumors expressing the membrane-only form of Fas ligand (FasL) terminate immune privilege, induce vigorous inflammation, undergo rejection, and induce systemic protective immunity. In these previous experiments the tumor cells used were genetically engineered to express membrane FasL. As an initial step toward developing an immunotherapy for intraocular tumors, the present study was conducted to examine whether injection of microvesicles expressing membrane FasL into ocular tumors (that are FasL negative) would have a similar effect. METHODS: Microvesicles expressing either no FasL or membrane-only Fas ligand were coinjected with L5178Y-R lymphoma cells into the anterior chambers (AC) of DBA/2 mice. RESULTS: Tumor cells coinjected with control vesicles grew progressively in the AC, and all mice died of metastatic disease by day 15. By contrast, a single injection of membrane FasL vesicles induced a potent inflammatory response characterized by GR1+ neutrophils and F4/80+ macrophages and significantly improved survival from 0% in untreated mice to 58% in mFasL-treated mice. Among the surviving mice, the ocular tumor was eliminated in 55%, and the mice exhibited systemic protection from a second tumor challenge. In the remaining 45%, the ocular tumor was not eliminated, but the mice were protected from liver metastases. CONCLUSIONS: Bioactive membrane FasL microvesicles coinjected with tumor cells induce a potent inflammatory response that terminates immune privilege, eliminates ocular tumors, and prevents metastatic disease.

Comprehensive allergy evaluation is useful in the subsequent care of patients with drug hypersensitivity reactions during anesthesia.

BACKGROUND: For patients with a history of drug hypersensitivity reaction (HSR) during anesthesia, strategies to minimize risk with subsequent anesthesia are unclear. Identification of the cause of HSR during anesthesia remains challenging. OBJECTIVE: To determine the success of a comprehensive allergy evaluation and management plan for patients with HSR during anesthesia, including identification of the causative agent and review of outcomes during subsequent anesthesia exposure. METHODS: We performed chart reviews of patients referred for the evaluation of HSR during anesthesia between 2003 and 2012. Data collection included patient characteristics, signs/symptoms of HSR during anesthesia, and subsequent outcomes. Patients underwent comprehensive allergy evaluation including skin testing for identifying potential culprit agents, and the results were used to provide recommendations for any subsequent anesthesia. RESULTS: Over the 10-year study period, 73 patients with HSR during anesthesia were referred for further evaluation. Thirteen patients (18%) had positive skin test results to a drug received during anesthesia. One patient with a positive skin test result was diagnosed with mastocytosis. The causative agents identified in these 13 patients included latex, ß-lactam antibiotics, neuromuscular blockers, tetracaine, odansetron, and fentanyl. On follow-up, 47 of the 73 patients (64%) subsequently underwent procedures requiring anesthesia. Using our recommendations from evaluation and testing, 45 of these 47 patients (96%) successfully tolerated subsequent anesthesia. The 2 patients who developed recurrent HSR during anesthesia were later diagnosed with mast cell disorders. CONCLUSIONS: Our comprehensive evaluation and management plan minimizes risk with subsequent anesthesia even when the cause of HSR could not be identified. Baseline tryptase levels may be helpful in this patient population to diagnose mast cell disorders.