An investigational oral plasma kallikrein inhibitor for on-demand treatment of hereditary angioedema: a two-part, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend effective on-demand therapy for all individuals with hereditary angioedema. We aimed to assess the novel oral plasma kallikrein inhibitor, sebetralstat, which is in development, for on-demand treatment of hereditary angioedema attacks. METHODS: In this two-part phase 2 trial, individuals with type 1 or 2 hereditary angioedema aged 18 years or older were recruited from 25 sites, consisting of specialty outpatient centres, across nine countries in Europe and the USA. Individuals were eligible if they had experienced at least three hereditary angioedema attacks in the past 93 days, were not on prophylactic therapy, and had access to and the ability to self-administer conventional attack treatment. In part 1 of the trial, participants were given a single 600 mg open-label oral dose of sebetralstat to assess safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of the dose. Part 2 was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, two-sequence, two-period (2 × 2) crossover trial; participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to either sequence 1, in which they were given a single dose of 600 mg of sebetralstat to treat the first eligible attack and a second dose of placebo to treat the second eligible attack, or sequence 2, in which they were given placebo to treat the first eligible attack and then 600 mg of sebetralstat to treat the second eligible attack. Participants and investigators were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was time to use of conventional attack treatment within 12 h of study drug administration, which was assessed in all participants who were randomly assigned to treatment and who received study drug for two attacks during part 2 of the study. Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose of study drug, starting in part 1. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04208412, and is completed. FINDINGS: Between July 2, 2019, and Dec 8, 2020, 84 individuals were screened and 68 were enrolled in part 1 and received sebetralstat (mean age 38·3 years [SD 13·2], 37 [54%] were female, 31 [46%] were male, 68 [100%] were White). 42 (62%) of 68 participants completed pharmacokinetic assessments. Sebetralstat was rapidly absorbed, with a geometric mean plasma concentration of 501 ng/mL at 15 min. In a subset of participants (n=6), plasma samples obtained from 15 min to 4 h after study drug administration had near-complete protection from ex vivo stimulated generation of plasma kallikrein and cleavage of high-molecular-weight kininogen. In part 2, all 68 participants were randomly assigned to sequence 1 (n=34) or sequence 2 (n=34). 53 (78%) of 68 participants treated two attacks (25 [74%] in the sequence 1 group and 28 [82%] in the sequence 2 group). Time to use of conventional treatment within 12 h of study drug administration was significantly longer with sebetralstat versus placebo (at quartile 1: >12 h [95% CI 9·6 to >12] vs 8·0 h [3·8 to >12]; p=0·0010). There were no serious adverse events or adverse event-related discontinuations. INTERPRETATION: Oral administration of sebetralstat was well tolerated and led to rapid suppression of plasma kallikrein activity, resulting in increased time to use of conventional attack treatment and faster symptom relief versus placebo. Based on these results, a phase 3 trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of two dose levels of sebetralstat in adolescent and adult participants with hereditary angioedema has been initiated (NCT05259917). FUNDING: KalVista Pharmaceuticals.

United States Drug Allergy Registry (USDAR) grading scale for immediate drug reactions.

BACKGROUND: There is no accepted grading system classifying the severity of immediate reactions to drugs. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to present a proposed grading system developed through the consensus of drug allergy experts from the United States Drug Allergy Registry (USDAR) Consortium. METHODS: The USDAR investigators sought to develop a consensus severity grading system for immediate drug reactions that is applicable to clinical care and research. RESULTS: The USDAR grading scale scores severity levels on a scale of 0 to 4. A grade of no reaction (NR) is used for patients who undergo challenge without any symptoms or signs, and it would confirm a negative challenge result. A grade 0 reaction is indicative of primarily subjective complaints that are commonly seen with both historical drug reactions and during drug challenges, and it would suggest a low likelihood of a true drug allergic reaction. Grades 1 to 4 meet the criteria for a positive challenge result and may be considered indicative of a drug allergy. Grade 1 reactions are suggestive of a potential immediate drug reaction with mild symptoms. Grade 2 reactions are more likely to be immediate drug reactions of moderate severity. Grade 3 reactions have features suggestive of a severe allergic reaction, whereas grade 4 reactions are life-threatening reactions such as anaphylactic shock and fatal anaphylaxis. CONCLUSION: This proposed grading schema for immediate drug reactions improves on prior schemata by being developed specifically for immediate drug reactions and being easy to implement in clinical and research practice.

Updated guidance regarding the risk of allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines and recommended evaluation and management: A GRADE assessment and international consensus approach.

This guidance updates 2021 GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) recommendations regarding immediate allergic reactions following coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines and addresses revaccinating individuals with first-dose allergic reactions and allergy testing to determine revaccination outcomes. Recent meta-analyses assessed the incidence of severe allergic reactions to initial COVID-19 vaccination, risk of mRNA-COVID-19 revaccination after an initial reaction, and diagnostic accuracy of COVID-19 vaccine and vaccine excipient testing in predicting reactions. GRADE methods informed rating the certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations. A modified Delphi panel consisting of experts in allergy, anaphylaxis, vaccinology, infectious diseases, emergency medicine, and primary care from Australia, Canada, Europe, Japan, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States formed the recommendations. We recommend vaccination for persons without COVID-19 vaccine excipient allergy and revaccination after a prior immediate allergic reaction. We suggest against >15-minute postvaccination observation. We recommend against mRNA vaccine or excipient skin testing to predict outcomes. We suggest revaccination of persons with an immediate allergic reaction to the mRNA vaccine or excipients be performed by a person with vaccine allergy expertise in a properly equipped setting. We suggest against premedication, split-dosing, or special precautions because of a comorbid allergic history.

Long-term lanadelumab treatment improves health-related quality of life in patients with hereditary angioedema.

BACKGROUND: Hereditary angioedema (HAE) is associated with a substantial disease burden. Lanadelumab reduced the HAE attack rate during 132 weeks of follow-up in the HELP open-label extension (OLE) Study (NCT02741596). OBJECTIVE: To measure the impact of long-term lanadelumab treatment on patient-reported outcomes (PROs). METHODS: Rollover patients (completed the 26-week HELP study [NCT02586805]) and nonrollovers (newly enrolled) received lanadelumab 300 mg every 2 weeks. PROs (Angioedema Quality of Life Questionnaire [AE-QoL], Short Form Health Survey 12-item version 2, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Work Productivity and Activity Impairment-General Health Questionnaire, and EQ-5D-5L questionnaire) were assessed at baseline (day 0 of HELP OLE) and various time points until the end-of-study visit. The Angioedema Control Test, Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication, and Global Impression of Treatment Response were administered starting at week 52. RESULTS: The mean (SD) change in AE-QoL total score from baseline to end-of-study for rollovers (n = 90) was -10.2 (17.9), exhibiting further improvement from HELP in health-related quality of life (HRQoL); 48.9% of rollovers achieved the previously defined 6-point minimal clinically important difference. Nonrollovers (n = 81) reported a change of -19.5 (21.3). Controlled disease (Angioedema Control Test total score ≥10) was reported by 90.2% of rollovers and 95.9% of nonrollovers at the end of the study. Excellent treatment response was reported by 78.7% of patients and 82.4% of investigators. Results from other PROs indicated a slight improvement in anxiety, a high level of satisfaction with treatment, and increased work productivityor activity. CONCLUSION: Clinically meaningful improvement in HRQoL was exhibited with long-term lanadelumab treatment, supporting the benefit of lanadelumab therapy associated with attack prevention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT02586805 (HELP Study) and NCT02741596 (HELP open-label extension).

Drug allergy in older adults: A study from the United States Drug Allergy Registry.

BACKGROUND: Older adults have an increased risk of adverse drug reactions and negative effects associated with alternative antibiotic use. Although the number of antibiotic allergies reported increases with age, the characteristics and outcomes of older adults receiving drug allergy assessment are unknown. OBJECTIVE: To assess the characteristics and outcomes of drug allergy evaluations in older adults. METHODS: We considered patients aged above or equal to 65 years enrolled in the United States Drug Allergy Registry (USDAR), a US multisite prospective cohort (January 16, 2019 to February 28, 2022). Data were summarized using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Of 1678 USDAR participants from 5 sites, 406 older adults aged above or equal to 65 years (37% 65-69 years, 37% 70-74 years, 16% 75-79 years, and 10% ≥80 years) received 501 drug allergy assessments. USDAR older adults were primarily of female sex (69%), White (94%), and non-Hispanic (98%). Most USDAR older adults reported less than or equal to 1 infections per year (64%) and rated their general health as good, very good, or excellent (80%). Of 296 (59%) penicillin allergy assessments in USDAR older adults, 286 (97%) were disproved. Other drug allergy assessments included sulfonamide (n = 41, 88% disproved) and cephalosporin (n = 20, 95% disproved) antibiotics. All 41 drug allergy labels in USDAR participants aged above or equal to 80 years and all 80 penicillin allergy labels in USDAR men aged above or equal to 65 years were disproved. CONCLUSION: Older adults represented a quarter of USDAR participants but were neither racially nor ethnically diverse and were generally healthy without considerable antibiotic need. Most older adults presented for antibiotic allergy assessments, the vast majority of which were disproved. Drug allergy assessments may be underutilized in the older adults who are most vulnerable to the harms of unconfirmed antibiotic allergy labels.

Healthcare utilization of patients with hereditary angioedema treated with lanadelumab and subcutaneous C1-inhibitor concentrate.

Background: New hereditary angioedema (HAE) treatments have become available in recent years for the treatment of HAE due to C1-inhibitor (C1-INH) deficiency, including two subcutaneous (SC) options: a monoclonal antibody (lanadelumab) and a plasma-derived C1-INH concentrate (SC-C1-INH). Limited real-world data on these therapies have been reported. Objective: The objective was to describe new users of lanadelumab and SC-C1-INH, including demographics, healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), costs, and treatment patterns before and after beginning treatment. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study that used an administrative claims data base. Two mutually exclusive cohorts of adult (ages ≥18 years) new users of lanadelumab or SC-C1-INH with ≥180 days of continuous use were identified. HCRU, costs, and treatment patterns were assessed in the 180-day period before the index date (new treatment use) and up to 365 days after the index date. HCRU and costs were calculated as annualized rates. Results: Forty-seven patients who used lanadelumab and 38 patients who used SC-C1-INH were identified. The most frequently used on-demand HAE treatments at baseline were the same for both cohorts: bradykinin B2 antagonists (48.9% of the patients on lanadelumab, 52.6% of the patients on SC-C1-INH) and C1-INHs (40.4% of the patients on lanadelumab, 57.9% of the patients on SC-C1-INH). More than 33% of the patients continued to fill on-demand medications after treatment initiation. Annualized angioedema-associated emergency department visits and hospitalizations decreased after initiation of treatment, from 1.8 to 0.6 for the patients on lanadelumab and from 1.3 to 0.5 for the patients on SC-C1-INH. Annualized total healthcare costs after treatment initiation in the database were $866,639 and $734,460 for the lanadelumab and SC-C1-INH cohorts, respectively. Pharmacy costs accounted for >95% of these total costs. Conclusion: Although HCRU decreased after the initiation of treatment, angioedema-associated emergency department visits and hospitalizations and on-demand treatment fills were not completely eliminated. This indicates ongoing disease and treatment burden despite use of modern HAE medicines.

Rapid progress in our understanding of COVID-19 vaccine allergy: A cause for optimism, not hesitancy.

Anaphylaxis is a life-threatening condition and when associated with vaccination, leads to vaccine hesitancy. The concerns around vaccine-related anaphylaxis have become even more important during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic where the COVID-19 vaccines remain one of our most important tools. Although rates of anaphylaxis to COVID-19 vaccines are not significantly different from those to other vaccines, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidance recommends avoidance of the same COVID-19 vaccine in individuals who had an allergic reaction or are allergic to a COVID-19 vaccine component. Fortunately, our understanding of COVID-19 vaccine allergic reactions has improved dramatically in the past year in large part due to important research efforts from individuals in the allergy community. Initially, researchers published algorithmic approaches using risk stratification and excipient skin testing. However, as our experience and knowledge improved with ongoing research, we have better data showing safety of repeat vaccination despite an initial reaction. We review our progress starting in December 2020 when the Food and Drug Administration approved the first COVID-19 vaccine in the United States through early 2022, highlighting our success in understanding COVID-19 vaccine reactions.

Differential Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Antibody Profiles After Allergic Reactions to Messenger RNA Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccine.

Allergic symptoms after messenger RNA (mRNA) coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines occur in up to 2% of recipients. Compared to nonallergic controls (n = 18), individuals with immediate allergic reactions to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines (n = 8) mounted lower immunoglobulin G1 (IgG1) to multiple antigenic targets in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 spike following vaccination, with significantly lower IgG1 to full-length spike (P = .04). Individuals with immediate allergic reactions to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines bound Fcγ receptors similarly to nonallergic controls. Although there was a trend toward an overall reduction in opsonophagocytic function in individuals with immediate allergic reactions compared to nonallergic controls, allergic patients produced functional antibodies exhibiting a high ratio of opsonophagocytic function to IgG1 titer.

Long-term prevention of hereditary angioedema attacks with lanadelumab: The HELP OLE Study.

BACKGROUND: The aim was to evaluate long-term effectiveness and safety of lanadelumab in patients ≥12 y old with hereditary angioedema (HAE) 1/2 (NCT02741596). METHODS: Rollover patients completing the HELP Study and continuing into HELP OLE received one lanadelumab 300 mg dose until first attack (dose-and-wait period), then 300 mg q2wks (regular dosing stage). Nonrollovers (newly enrolled) received lanadelumab 300 mg q2wks from day 0. Baseline attack rate for rollovers: ≥1 attack/4 weeks (based on run-in period attack rate during HELP Study); for nonrollovers: historical attack rate ≥1 attack/12 weeks. The planned treatment period was 33 months. RESULTS: 212 patients participated (109 rollovers, 103 nonrollovers); 81.6% completed ≥30 months on study (mean [SD], 29.6 [8.2] months). Lanadelumab markedly reduced mean HAE attack rate (reduction vs baseline: 87.4% overall). Patients were attack free for a mean of 97.7% of days during treatment; 81.8% and 68.9% of patients were attack free for ≥6 and ≥12 months, respectively. Angioedema Quality-of-Life total and domain scores improved from day 0 to end of study. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) (excluding HAE attacks) were reported by 97.2% of patients; most commonly injection site pain (47.2%) and viral upper respiratory tract infection (42.0%). Treatment-related TEAEs were reported by 54.7% of patients. Most injection site reactions resolved within 1 hour (70.2%) or 1 day (92.6%). Six (2.8%) patients discontinued due to TEAEs. No treatment-related serious TEAEs or deaths were reported. Eleven treatment-related TEAEs of special interest were reported by seven (3.3%) patients. CONCLUSION: Lanadelumab demonstrated sustained efficacy and acceptable tolerability with long-term use in HAE patients.

The international WAO/EAACI guideline for the management of hereditary angioedema-The 2021 revision and update.

Hereditary angioedema (HAE) is a rare and disabling disease for which early diagnosis and effective therapy are critical. This revision and update of the global WAO/EAACI guideline on the diagnosis and management of HAE provides up-to-date guidance for the management of HAE. For this update and revision of the guideline, an international panel of experts reviewed the existing evidence, developed 28 recommendations, and established consensus by an online DELPHI process. The goal of these recommendations and guideline is to help physicians and their patients in making rational decisions in the management of HAE with deficient C1 inhibitor (type 1) and HAE with dysfunctional C1 inhibitor (type 2), by providing guidance on common and important clinical issues, such as: (1) How should HAE be diagnosed? (2) When should HAE patients receive prophylactic on top of on-demand treatment and what treatments should be used? (3) What are the goals of treatment? (4) Should HAE management be different for special HAE patient groups such as children or pregnant/breast-feeding women? and (5) How should HAE patients monitor their disease activity, impact, and control? It is also the intention of this guideline to help establish global standards for the management of HAE and to encourage and facilitate the use of recommended diagnostics and therapies for all patients.

Consider Hereditary Angioedema in the Differential Diagnosis for Unexplained Recurring Abdominal Pain.

Health care providers are likely to encounter patients with recurrent unexplained abdominal pain. Because hereditary angioedema (HAE) is a rare disease, it may not be part of the differential diagnosis, especially for patients who do not have concurrent skin swelling in addition to abdominal symptoms. Abdominal pain is very common in patients with HAE, occurring in up to 93% of patients, with recurrent abdominal pain reported in up to 80% of patients. In 49% of HAE attacks with abdominal symptoms, isolated abdominal pain was the only symptom. Other abdominal symptoms that commonly present in patients with HAE include distension, cramping, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. The average time from onset of symptoms to diagnosis is 6 to 23 years. Under-recognition of HAE in patients presenting with predominant gastrointestinal symptoms is a key factor contributing to the delay in diagnosis, increasing the likelihood of unnecessary or exploratory surgeries or procedures and the potential risk of related complications. HAE should be considered in the differential diagnosis for patients with unexplained abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, and/or diarrhea who have complete resolution of symptoms between episodes. As highly effective targeted therapies for HAE exist, recognition and diagnosis of HAE in patients presenting with isolated abdominal pain may significantly improve morbidity and mortality for these individuals.

Consensus on treatment goals in hereditary angioedema: A global Delphi initiative.

BACKGROUND: Hereditary angioedema (HAE) is a rare, life-threatening genetic disorder characterized by recurrent episodes of subcutaneous or submucosal angioedema. The ultimate goals of treatment for HAE remain ill-defined. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this Delphi process was to define the goals of HAE treatment and to examine which factors should be considered when assessing disease control and normalization of the patient's life. METHODS: The Delphi panel comprised 23 participants who were selected based on involvement with scientific research on HAE or coauthorship of the most recent update and revision of the World Allergy Organization/European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology guideline on HAE. The process comprised 3 rounds of voting. The final round aimed to aggregate the opinions of the expert panel and to achieve consensus. RESULTS: Two direct consensus questions were posed in round 2, based on the responses received in round 1, and the panel agreed that the goals of treatment are to achieve total control of the disease and to normalize the patient's life. For the third round of voting, 21 statements were considered, with the participants reaching consensus on 18. It is clear from the wide-ranging consensus statements that the burdens of disease and treatment should be considered when assessing disease control and normalization of patients' lives. CONCLUSIONS: The ultimate goal for HAE treatment is to achieve no angioedema attacks. The availability of improved treatments and disease management over the last decade now makes complete control of HAE a realistic possibility for most patients.

Oral once-daily berotralstat for the prevention of hereditary angioedema attacks: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Berotralstat (BCX7353) is an oral, once-daily inhibitor of plasma kallikrein in development for the prophylaxis of hereditary angioedema (HAE) attacks. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to determine the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of berotralstat in patients with HAE over a 24-week treatment period (the phase 3 APeX-2 trial). METHODS: APeX-2 was a double-blind, parallel-group study that randomized patients at 40 sites in 11 countries 1:1:1 to receive once-daily berotralstat in a dose of 110 mg or 150 mg or placebo (Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT03485911). Patients aged 12 years or older with HAE due to C1 inhibitor deficiency and at least 2 investigator-confirmed HAE attacks in the first 56 days of a prospective run-in period were eligible. The primary efficacy end point was the rate of investigator-confirmed HAE attacks during the 24-week treatment period. RESULTS: A total of 121 patients were randomized; 120 of them received at least 1 dose of the study drug (n = 41, 40, and 39 in the 110-mg dose of berotralstat, 150-mg of dose berotralstat, and placebo groups, respectively). Berotralstat demonstrated a significant reduction in attack rate at both 110 mg (1.65 attacks per month; P = .024) and 150 mg (1.31 attacks per month; P < .001) relative to placebo (2.35 attacks per month). The most frequent treatment-emergent adverse events that occurred more with berotralstat than with placebo were abdominal pain, vomiting, diarrhea, and back pain. No drug-related serious treatment-emergent adverse events occurred. CONCLUSION: Both the 110-mg and 150-mg doses of berotralstat reduced HAE attack rates compared with placebo and were safe and generally well tolerated. The most favorable benefit-to-risk profile was observed at a dose of 150 mg per day.

Impact of lanadelumab on health-related quality of life in patients with hereditary angioedema in the HELP study.

BACKGROUND: An objective of the phase 3 HELP Study was to investigate the effect of lanadelumab on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with hereditary angioedema (HAE). METHODS: Patients with HAE-1/2 received either lanadelumab 150 mg every 4 weeks (q4wks; n = 28), 300 mg q4wks (n = 29), 300 mg every 2 weeks (q2wks; n = 27), or placebo (n = 41) for 26 weeks (days 0-182). The Angioedema Quality of Life Questionnaire (AE-QoL) was administered monthly, consisting of four domain (functioning, fatigue/mood, fears/shame, nutrition) and total scores. The generic EQ-5D-5L questionnaire was administered on days 0, 98, and 182. Comparisons were made between placebo and (a) all lanadelumab-treated patients and (b) individual lanadelumab groups for changes in scores (day 0-182) and proportions achieving the minimal clinically important difference (MCID, -6) in AE-QoL total score. RESULTS: Compared with the placebo group, the lanadelumab total group demonstrated significantly greater improvements in AE-QoL total and domain scores (mean change, -13.0 to -29.3; p < 0.05 for all); the largest improvement was in functioning. A significantly greater proportion of the lanadelumab total group achieved the MCID (70% vs 37%; p = 0.001). The lanadelumab 300 mg q2wks group had the highest proportion (81%; p = 0.001) and was 7.2 times more likely to achieve the MCID than the placebo group. Mean EQ-5D-5L scores at day 0 were high in all groups, indicating low impairment, with no significant changes at day 182. CONCLUSION: Patients with HAE-1/2 experienced significant and clinically meaningful improvements in HRQoL measured by AE-QoL following lanadelumab treatment in the HELP Study.

Current medical management of hereditary angioedema: Follow-up survey of US physicians.

BACKGROUND: Physician surveys on hereditary angioedema (HAE) management in 2010 and 2013 revealed important trends in HAE care. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate current HAE management and the impact of new treatment options on physician practice patterns over time. METHODS: During June and July 2019, 5382 physicians were contacted by means of postal mail to complete a 47-question survey; 177 responded (3%). RESULTS: Across the 3 surveys, the home replaced the emergency department as the most typically reported setting for HAE attack treatment (54.3% vs 11.6% in 2010 and 32.5% in 2013; P < .001). Physicians reported C1 esterase inhibitor (C1-INH) as the most typically prescribed long-term prophylactic treatment (LTP) (60.0% vs 20.4% in 2010 and 56.7% in 2013; P < .001). Subcutaneous LTP medications were most typically prescribed over intravenous (C1-INH, 41.4%; subcutaneous lanadelumab, 21%; intravenous C1-INH, 18.6%). Danazol, the most frequently prescribed LTP treatment, dropped to 6.4% (55.8% in 2010 and 23.4% in 2013; P < .001). The strongest nonefficacy factor influencing clinician treatment choice changed over time, with cost and (or) insurance coverage increasing to 43.7% (from 24.4% in 2010 and 40.5% in 2013; P = .001), whereas the concern over adverse effects dropped to 16.2% (from 55.8% in 2010 and 29.5% in 2013; P < .001). Physician-reported patient satisfaction remains high, with only 1.5% of physicians indicating patients are not satisfied with treatment. CONCLUSION: The US physician survey data reflect improvements in the HAE management in recent years. Therapeutic advances in HAE have led to reported higher rates of home treatment of HAE attacks, reduced concern for adverse treatment effects, and high levels of patient satisfaction.

Immediate reaction to ibrutinib amenable to oral desensitization.

INTRODUCTION: Although up to half of patients receiving chemotherapeutic agents develop hypersensitivity reactions to the same, desensitization protocols can induce temporary tolerance to allow patients to continue to receive first-line treatment. Approximately 25% of patients develop cutaneous hypersensitivity reactions to ibrutinib, but there are no published management guidelines. CASE REPORT: We describe the case of a 71-year-old woman with chronic lymphocytic leukemia who developed a delayed maculopapular rash with lip tingling and swelling following ibrutinib therapy. MANAGEMENT AND OUTCOME: We performed a novel 11-step desensitization procedure to ibrutinib allowing us to successfully induce tolerance against IgE-mediated symptoms in this patient. DISCUSSION: As indications for ibrutinib use expand and more patients present with IgE-mediated symptoms, we expect that this protocol will provide benefit for many such patients.

Skin testing and drug challenge in the evaluation of drug hypersensitivity reactions.

Immediate hypersensitivity to drugs is characterized by symptoms such as hives, swelling, and wheezing. To prevent a negative impact on care, assessment by an allergist is important. Evaluation requires a clear clinical history, but it is often lacking or vague, which makes a diagnosis difficult. Allergists instead can use skin testing and drug challenge to evaluate drug hypersensitivity reactions, which help the patient and provider understand the causative drug(s) and, more importantly, enables the use of the exonerated drug(s). Although penicillin skin testing is standardized, well described, and widely used, skin testing for most other drugs requires the use of a nonirritating skin testing concentration that can have a low negative predictive value. Drug challenges are the criterion standard for confirming tolerance. The allergist must obtain an in-depth clinical history and then follow with skin testing and/or drug challenges when indicated to determine which drugs can be de-labelled and which should be avoided. In this review, we focused on the evaluation of drug hypersensitivity reactions to antibiotics, perioperative agents, biologics, and chemotherapeutics.

Patient perspectives on the treatment burden of injectable medication for hereditary angioedema.

Hereditary angioedema (HAE) is a rare, chronic disease characterized by debilitating swelling episodes in various parts of the body. Patients experience significant burdens related to the symptoms and management of HAE, which can affect their daily lives and reduce their overall quality of life. Prophylactic treatment options have expanded in the past decade to the benefit of patients; however, these therapies require scheduled injections, which can be painful, burdensome, and time consuming. We conducted an online survey of patients with HAE in the USA to better understand their experiences with available prophylactic medications and the associated treatment burdens. Our survey results suggest that most patients are satisfied with their current therapies but desire novel medications with a simpler route of administration and that, although most patients experience significant treatment-related burdens, they learn to cope with these challenges over time.

Caregivers' role in managing hereditary angioedema and perceptions of treatment-related burden.

Hereditary angioedema (HAE) is a rare genetic disease that results in recurrent, debilitating, and potentially life-threatening swelling episodes in the extremities, genitals, gastrointestinal tract, and upper airway. Patients can experience significant burdens related to their disease. Informal or familial caregivers often support patients with HAE and likely share in the disease-related burdens, although there are limited HAE caregiver-focused reports in the scientific literature. In the United States, we conducted an online survey of adults caring for an individual with HAE to better understand their experiences with the disease and identify psychosocial impacts of providing care for a patient with HAE. Thirty caregivers provided responses to the survey. Most caregivers were family members of the care recipient and many had HAE themselves. Caregivers reported participating in a number of medical-related tasks and experiencing some burdens as a result of caring for a person with HAE.

Physician and patient perspectives on the management of hereditary angioedema: a survey on treatment burden and needs.

Hereditary angioedema (HAE) is a rare disorder caused by genetic mutations that lead to recurrent episodes of swelling in various parts of the body. Prophylactic treatment is common for patients with HAE, and the therapeutic options have expanded in recent years. The current standard of care for prophylactic HAE therapies is subcutaneous treatment, which can be self-administered at home, greatly improving patient quality of life. As new therapies emerge, it is important for patients and physicians to discuss the risks and benefits associated with each treatment to develop an individualized approach to HAE management. We conducted surveys of patients with HAE and physicians who treat patients with HAE to identify prescribing trends for prophylactic HAE treatments and the impact that such treatments has on patients. Our results confirmed that newer, subcutaneous therapies are prescribed for HAE prophylaxis more frequently than other therapies in the United States and that treatment burdens still exist for patients with HAE. We found that physicians and patients were not always aligned on how treatment choices affect patients' lives, which may mean that there are opportunities for enhanced patient-physician dialog and shared decision-making in HAE management in the United States.