The role of supervised school therapy in poorly controlled asthma in children.

Background: In children, nonadherence to inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) therapy leads to poor asthma control and complications. Methods: We evaluated the benefit from initiation of ICS administration once daily at school. We retrospectively chose patients from our pediatric pulmonary clinic who had poorly controlled asthma and prescribed ICS daily. For the study period, we examined the number of corticosteroid courses, emergency room visits, hospital admissions, symptom history, and pulmonary function tests. Results: Thirty-four patients who satisfied the inclusion criteria began the intervention. Preintervention, there were a mean number of 2.6 oral corticosteroid courses compared to 2 courses in the year following intervention (P = 0.8). Postintervention emergency department visits decreased from a mean of 1.4 to 1.0 (P = 0.71), and hospital admissions decreased from 1.23 to 0.57 (P = 0.04). There was also a significant increase in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (1.69 vs 1.4 L/sec, P = 0.02), a decrease in systemic steroid-free days in a year (96 vs 141 days, P = 0.03), and an increase in symptom-free days postintervention (28 vs 26 days, P = 0.325). Conclusion: These findings suggest that ICS administration in schools may help reduce hospital admissions and improve lung function in patients with poorly controlled asthma.

Hypersensitivity reactions to multiple biologicals in a pediatric patient with severe persistent asthma.

Asthma is a common chronic pediatric disease that negatively impacts the quality of patients' lives. While most cases can be effectively managed with a regimen of inhaled corticosteroids, severe cases require prolonged or frequent courses of oral corticosteroids or the addition of biologic therapies and allergen immunotherapy. Biologics are well tolerated with few side effects; however, reactions as severe as anaphylaxis have been reported. We present a pediatric patient with severe persistent asthma who developed hypersensitivity reactions to three different biologic agents.

Allergic reactions and adverse events associated with administration of mRNA-based vaccines. A health-care system experience.

Background: Adverse reactions, including anaphylaxis, to messenger RNA coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines rarely occur. Because of the need to administer a timely second dose in subjects who reported a reaction to their first dose, a panel of health-care professionals developed a safe triage of the employees and health care providers (EHCP) at a large health-care system to consider administration of future dosing. Methods: There were 28,544 EHCPs who received their first dose of COVID-19 vaccines between December 15, 2020, and March 8, 2021. The EHCPs self-reported adverse reactions to a centralized COVID-19 command center (CCC). The CCC screened and collected information on the quality of reaction, symptoms, and timing of the onset of the reaction. Results: Of 1253 calls to the CCC, 113 were identified as requiring consideration by a panel of three (American Board of Allergy and Immunology) ABAI-certified allergists for future dosing or formal in-person assessment. Of the 113 EHCPs, 94 (83.2%) were recommended to get their second dose. Eighty of 94 received their second planned dose without a severe or immediate reaction. Of the 14 of 113 identified as needing further evaluation, 6 were evaluated by a physician and subsequently received their second dose without a serious adverse reaction. Eight of 14 did not receive their second dose. Only 5 of the 113 EHCPs reported reactions (4.4%) were recommended to not take the second dose: 3 (2.6%) because of symptoms consistent with anaphylaxis, and 2 because of neurologic complications (seizure, stroke). Conclusion: The panel demonstrated that, by consideration of reaction history alone, the ECHPs could be appropriately triaged to receive scheduled second dosing of COVID-19 vaccines without delays for in-person evaluation and allergy testing.

Management of group B Streptococcus in pregnant women with penicillin allergy.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether group B Streptococcus (GBS)-colonized pregnant women who report a history of penicillin allergy can safely undergo diagnostic evaluation to rule out or confirm the potential for an IgE-mediated (allergic) reaction to penicillin. STUDY DESIGN: Over 18 months, all pregnant women with GBS-positive vaginal/rectal cultures and a history of penicillin allergy were referred to the Department of Allergy and Immunology for a history and possible skin testing. Patients who had experienced anaphylaxis were advised to continue avoiding penicillin and were not skin tested. Women without such a history underwent immediate hypersensitivity (percutaneous and intradermal) testing using 2 penicillin reagents with controls. If skin testing was negative, intrapartum antimicrobial prophylaxis with intravenous penicillin was administered. RESULTS: Of 28 patients with both GBS colonization and "penicillin allergy," 25 (89%) had negative skin testing to penicillin and received intrapartum penicillin for GBS prophylaxis without adverse reactions. Skin testing was positive in 2 patients, and intrapartum penicillin was not administered. Penicillin skin testing was not performed on 1 patient due to a history of anaphylaxis from penicillin. CONCLUSION: These results indicate that most pregnant women reporting penicillin allergy undergo negative skin tests and are able to safely receive intrapartum penicillin GBS prophylaxis.

Penicillin skin testing in patients with a history of beta-lactam allergy.

BACKGROUND: Vancomycin and fluoroquinolones are commonly used in patients with a history of penicillin allergy. OBJECTIVE: To determine the safety and utility of penicillin skin testing (PST). METHODS: Retrospective study of patients with a history of penicillin allergy between April 1, 1999, and September 30, 2004. Penicillin skin testing was performed by means of standard methods using benzylpenicilloyl-polysine, penicillin G, and histamine and saline controls. RESULTS: Of 596 patients studied, 25.3% were outpatients, 50.3% were inpatients, and 24.3% were intensive care unit patients. The most common antibiotics used during the time of PST were vancomycin and fluoroquinolones. Results of PST were negative in 88.4% of patients, positive in 8.2%, and indeterminate in 3.4%. One patient (0.17%) developed urticaria immediately after PST. Fifty-five percent of patients with negative PST results were changed to a beta-lactam drug, more frequently in the intensive care unit vs the outpatient setting (70.3% vs 8.6%; P < .001) and in adults vs patients younger than 18 years (58.6% vs 8.1%; P < .001). A beta-lactam antibiotic was used in 290 patients with negative PST results. Of the patients given beta-lactam antibiotics, 5 (1.7%) had adverse reactions: 2 had hives after 16 and 20 days of therapy, 1 had a nonspecific rash after 17 days of therapy, 1 had flushing and urticaria 3 hours after a test dose of piperacillin-tazobactam, and 1 had a pruritic rash after 12 hours of therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with a history of penicillin allergy can safely use beta-lactam drugs if negative PST results.

A prospective observational study of the effect of penicillin skin testing on antibiotic use in the intensive care unit.

BACKGROUND: Patients with penicillin allergy admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) frequently receive non-beta-lactam antimicrobials for the treatment of infection. The use of these antimicrobials, more commonly vancomycin and fluoroquinolones, is associated with the emergence of multidrug-resistant infections. The penicillin skin test (PST) can help detect patients at risk of developing an immediate allergic reaction to penicillin and those patients with a negative PST may be able to use a penicillin antibiotic safely. METHODS: We determined the incidence of true penicillin allergy, the percentage of patients changed to a beta-lactam antimicrobial when the test was negative, the safety of the test, and the safety of administration of beta-lactam antimicrobials in patients with a negative test. Skin testing was performed using standard methodology. RESULTS: One hundred patients admitted to 4 ICUs were prospectively studied; 58 of them were male. The mean age was 63 years. Ninety-six patients had the PST: one was positive (1.04%), 10 (10.4%) were nondiagnostic, and 85 (88.5%) were negative. Of the 38 patients who received antimicrobials for therapeutic reasons, 31(81.5%) had the antibiotic changed to a beta-lactam antimicrobial after a negative reading versus 7 patients of the 57 (12%) who had received a prophylactic antimicrobial (P < .001). No adverse effects were reported after the PST or after antimicrobial administration. CONCLUSIONS: The PST is a safe, reliable, and effective strategy to reduce the use of non-beta-lactam antimicrobials in patients who are labeled as penicillin allergic and admitted to the ICU.

Penicillin allergy: consider trying penicillin again.

A history of allergy to penicillin does not necessarily rule out using penicillin again. With skin testing and, in some cases, desensitization, most patients with a history of penicillin allergy can safely receive the drug.