Prevalence of omalizumab resistant chronic urticaria and real world effectiveness of dupilumab in omalizumab refractory chronic urticaria patients: a single center experience.

Chronic urticaria (CU) is characterized by wheals, angioedema, or both lasting for ≥ 6 weeks with chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) being the most common subtype. Omalizumab-resistant CSU cases represent an unmet clinical need. In this study, we aimed to assess the prevalence and predictors of omalizumab failure in a large cohort of CU patients and assess the effectiveness of dupilumab for omalizumab-recalcitrant CU. Of 338 CU patients, 33 received omalizumab. 69.7% (23 patients) were responders and 30.3% (10 patients) non-responders. Bivariate regression demonstrated that female sex (adjusted OR [aOR] = 1.53; 95%CI = 1.14-2.06), higher baseline UAS7 (aOR = 1.05; 95%CI = 1.01-1.09) and older age (controlling for sex) (aOR = 1.00; 95%CI = 1.00, 1.01) were associated with omalizumab failure. Of 10 omalizumab-refractory patients, three were well controlled with cyclosporine (all children), whereas the seven adults failed on average 5.6 ± 2.6 therapies including cyclosporine. All 7 achieved a complete response with dupilumab with time to response varying between 1 to 6 months. While our results suggest a favourable efficacy of dupilumab omalizumab-resistant cases, future confirmatory studies are required.

Efficacy of a Clinical Decision Rule to Enable Direct Oral Challenge in Patients With Low-Risk Penicillin Allergy: The PALACE Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Fewer than 5% of patients labeled with a penicillin allergy are truly allergic. The standard of care to remove the penicillin allergy label in adults is specialized testing involving prick and intradermal skin testing followed by an oral challenge with penicillin. Skin testing is resource intensive, limits practice to specialist-trained physicians, and restricts the global population who could undergo penicillin allergy delabeling. Objective: To determine whether a direct oral penicillin challenge is noninferior to the standard of care of penicillin skin testing followed by an oral challenge in patients with a low-risk penicillin allergy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This parallel, 2-arm, noninferiority, open-label, multicenter, international randomized clinical trial occurred in 6 specialized centers, 3 in North America (US and Canada) and 3 in Australia, from June 18, 2021, to December 2, 2022. Eligible adults had a PEN-FAST score lower than 3. PEN-FAST is a prospectively derived and internationally validated clinical decision rule that enables point-of-care risk assessment for adults reporting penicillin allergies. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to either direct oral challenge with penicillin (intervention arm) or a standard-of-care arm of penicillin skin testing followed by oral challenge with penicillin (control arm). Main Outcome and Measure: The primary outcome was a physician-verified positive immune-mediated oral penicillin challenge within 1 hour postintervention in the intention-to-treat population. Noninferiority was achieved if a 1-sided 95% CI of the risk difference (RD) did not exceed 5 percentage points (pp). Results: A total of 382 adults were randomized, with 377 patients (median [IQR] age, 51 [35-65] years; 247 [65.5%] female) included in the analysis: 187 in the intervention group and 190 in the control group. Most patients had a PEN-FAST score of 0 or 1. The primary outcome occurred in 1 patient (0.5%) in the intervention group and 1 patient (0.5%) in the control group, with an RD of 0.0084 pp (90% CI, -1.22 to 1.24 pp). The 1-sided 95% CI was below the noninferiority margin of 5 pp. In the 5 days following the oral penicillin challenge, 9 immune-mediated adverse events were recorded in the intervention group and 10 in the control group (RD, -0.45 pp; 95% CI, -4.87 to 3.96 pp). No serious adverse events occurred. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, direct oral penicillin challenge in patients with a low-risk penicillin allergy was noninferior compared with standard-of-care skin testing followed by oral challenge. In patients with a low-risk history, direct oral penicillin challenge is a safe procedure to facilitate the removal of a penicillin allergy label. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04454229.

Allergic reactions to the coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine (ARCOV) study: The McGill University Health Centre experience.

BACKGROUND: Messenger RNA coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines have been associated with allergic reactions. A history of anaphylaxis has been suggested as a risk factor for such reactions. Polyethylene glycol (PEG) has been proposed as a possible culprit allergen. OBJECTIVE: To investigate possible PEG or polysorbate allergy among patients reporting prior reactions to COVID-19 vaccines or PEG and to report their subsequent tolerance of COVID-19 vaccines. METHODS: From January 1, 2021, to October 31, 2021, adult patients referred to the McGill University Health Centre allergy clinics who were considered at risk of anaphylaxis were prospectively recruited. The entry criteria were any documented history of reaction to a COVID-19 vaccine or reported allergy to PEG or polysorbate. Evaluated patients underwent skin prick testing (SPT) with PEG and polysorbate. After SPT, placebo-controlled vaccine challenges were carried out. RESULTS: Of the 44 patients recruited, 40 (90.1%) had reacted to the first vaccine dose, with 18 (45%) of them had anaphylactic reaction. All patients underwent SPT and 5 (11.3%) had a positive test result. A total of 39 patients (88.6%) underwent COVID-19 vaccine challenge at the allergy clinic. Most tolerated the vaccine, with 18 (40.1%) received a single full dose, 20 (45.4%) 2 split doses, and 6 (13.6%) a graded dosing protocol. Of the 40 patients who reacted to the first dose, 2 had immediate nonsevere allergic reactions to the second dose. CONCLUSION: In this cohort of patients with a history of anaphylaxis and increased risk of allergic reactions to the COVID-19 vaccines, after allergist evaluation, including negative PEG skin testing result, the vaccine was safely administered without any serious adverse events.

Successful Desensitization to mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine in a Case Series of Patients With a History of Anaphylaxis to the First Vaccine Dose.

Background: Coronavirus disease 2109 (COVID-19) vaccines have recently been approved to curb the global pandemic. The risk of allergic reactions to the vaccine polyethylene glycol (PEG) component has raised significant public concern. Desensitization is suggested in cases of vaccine related hypersensitivity reactions. After comprehensive literature review on the topic, our aim was to establish a safe and effective desensitization protocol for patients with suspected or confirmed immediate type hypersensitivity reactions to the COVID-19 vaccine. Methods: Participants were referred to the McGill University Health Center (MUHC) Allergy-Immunology department for clinical evaluation following a reported reaction to their first dose of Moderna® mRNA-1273 or Pfizer-BioNTech® BNT162b2 vaccines. They underwent skin prick testing (SPT) with higher and lower molecular weight (MW) PEG and polysorbate 80, as per published protocols. Their second dose was administered following a desensitization protocol consisting of multiple dose-administration steps followed by a 60-min observation period. Results: Among a cohort of 142 patients with an increased risk for allergic reactions to the COVID-19 vaccines, six individuals were selected to undergo desensitization. All were female with allergic background including chronic spontaneous urticaria, anaphylaxis to medications, and/or vaccines. The main symptom after their first dose was difficulty swallowing with lightheadedness or immediate urticaria, angioedema, and/or dizziness. Two patients had positive skin testing. One patient was on chronic antihistamines which resulted in an inconclusive PEG skin test and the skin testing was negative for the three other patients. During the desensitization, two patients reported cutaneous symptoms of an immediate reaction and were managed with antihistamines. One of these patients also complained of ear pressure and had a drop in her systolic blood pressure, treated with intravenous fluids. Conclusion: This study suggests that some individuals with an immediate-type hypersensitivity reaction to their first dose of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine may safely receive their second dose using a desensitization protocol. The success of this desensitization protocol is a step forward in the fight against COVID-19, allowing more individuals to be immunized.

CSACI position statement: Newer generation H1-antihistamines are safer than first-generation H1-antihistamines and should be the first-line antihistamines for the treatment of allergic rhinitis and urticaria.

Oral H1-antihistamines (AHs) are the most commonly used therapy to treat allergic rhinitis and chronic urticaria. Older, first-generation AHs (e.g. diphenhydramine, hydroxyzine) have significant and common side effects including sedation, impairment with decreased cognitive function, poor sleep quality, dry mouth, dizziness, and orthostatic hypotension. These drugs have also been found to result in death from accidents, intentional or unintentional overdoses, and sudden cardiac death. The unfavourable risk-benefit profile of first-generation AHs led to the development of newer, less-sedating second- and third-generation AHs, which first became available in Canada in the 1980s. High-quality trials have proven that newer generation AHs are superior in safety compared to older first-generation AHs. On average, they have improved potency and efficacy. Second- and third-generation AHs are the recommended first-line treatment for mild allergic rhinitis and acute and chronic urticaria. Despite this evidence, older first-generation AHs continue to be over-utilized because of their over-the-counter (OTC) status and long history of use. The Canadian Society of Allergy Clinical Immunology (CSACI) recommends that newer generation AHs should be preferred over first-generation AHs for the treatment of allergic rhino-conjunctivitis and urticaria. To promote this recommendation, education of health professionals and the public is necessary. Further, given the dangers of older first-generation AHs, we believe they should be used only as a last resort with eventual consideration given to having them only available behind the counter in pharmacies.

Age Is the Only Predictor of Poor Bowel Preparation in the Hospitalized Patient.

We examine the impact of key variables on the likelihood of inpatient poor bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Records of inpatients that underwent colonoscopy at our institution between January 2010 and December 2011 were retrospectively extracted. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression models were fitted to assess the effect of clinical variables on the odds of poor preparation. Tested predictors included age; gender; use of narcotics; heavy medication burden; comorbidities; history of previous abdominal surgery; neurological disorder; product used for bowel preparation, whether or not the bowel regimen was given as split or standard dose; and time of endoscopy. Overall, 244 patients were assessed including 83 (34.0%, 95% CI: 28.1-39.9%) with poor bowel preparation. Cecal intubation was achieved in 81.1% of patients (95% CI: 76.2-86.0%). When stratified by quality of bowel preparation, cecal intubation was achieved in only 65.9% (95% CI: 60.0-71.9%) of patients with poor bowel preparation and 89.9% (95% CI: 86.1-93.7%) of patient with good bowel preparation. In multivariate logistic regression analysis, only advancing age was an independent predictor of poor bowel preparation (OR = 1.026, CI: 1.006 to 1.045, and p = 0.008). Age is the only independent predictor of poor bowel preparation amongst hospitalized patients.

Comparison of the influence of plastic and fully covered metal biliary stents on the accuracy of EUS-FNA for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Prior studies have reported that the presence of prior biliary stent may interfere with EUS visualization of pancreatic tumors. We aimed to compare the influence of the biliary plastic and fully covered self-expanding metal stents (CSEMS) on the accuracy of EUS-FNA cytology in patients with solid pancreatic masses. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study evaluating 677 patients with solid pancreatic head/uncinate lesions and a previous biliary stent in whom EUS-FNA was performed. The patients were stratified into two groups: (1) those with a plastic stents and (2) those with CSEMS. Performance characteristics of EUS-FNA including the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: The frequency of obtaining an adequate cytology by EUS-FNA was similar in both the CSEMS group and the plastic stent group (97 vs. 97.1 % respectively; p = 1.0). The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of EUS-FNA was not significantly different between patients with CSEMS and plastic stents (96.8, 100, 100 % and 97.3, 98, 99.8 %, respectively). The negative predictive value for EUS-FNA was lower in the CSEMS group compared to the plastic stent group (66.6 vs. 78.1 % respectively; p = 0.42). There was one false-positive cytology in the plastic stent group compared to none in the CSEMS group. CONCLUSIONS: In a retrospective cohort trial, EUS-FNA was found to be highly accurate and safe in diagnosing patients with suspected pancreatic cancer, even in the presence of a plastic or metallic biliary stent. The presence of a stent did not contribute to a higher false-positive cytology rate.

Temperature threshold for burn injury: an oximeter safety study.

Pulse oximeters have become essential devices for evaluating and monitoring patient oxygenation. The probe emits a small amount of heat into the skin in the process of signal detection. Regulations set by the Food and Drug Administration currently limit the maximum allowable temperature of an oximeter probe to 41 degrees C. As a result of the prolonged exposure of extremities to these devices, we sought to determine the actual temperature threshold for burn injury in patients. Eighteen patients undergoing surgery for removal of redundant skin (abdominoplasty, breast reduction) consented to the application of a temperature-controlled custom probe with four light-emitting diodes that had temperatures set randomly at the expected threshold for burn injury (42.5 degrees C, 43 degrees C, 43.5 degrees C, and 44 degrees C). The probe was left in place for 8 hours (or less if significant pain was noted). The sites covered by the probes were then checked for signs of injury. On the next day, the redundant skin was removed as a scheduled procedure, and histopathology was performed to detect the extent of burn injury. The study was approved by the local institutional research board. Two patients were excluded because of technical problems with the probe, one of whom had the probe turned off because of pain. The only observed sign of injury was either erythema or a superficial blister that was usually unobservable or slightly red at operation. These subtle signs of a burn were noted in one patient at 43 degrees C, four at 43.5 degrees C, and nine at 44 degrees C. No burns were noted in two patients. Minimal or no signs of injury frequently were noted by histopathology. Pulse oximeter probes are safe up to a temperature of 43 degrees C for at least 8 hours in well-perfused skin. Above that temperature, there is a risk of burn injury. Performing temperature threshold tests in redundant skin that is planned for excision is a potential method for testing the safety of devices or materials.