Safety and tolerability of Evusheld in patients with CVID: The Mayo Clinic experience.

Background: The past 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic brought with it many unknowns for patients with immunodeficiency. Because of the concern for severe infection in those with immunocompromise, patients have been eager for effective prevention, vaccination, and treatment strategies. Preexposure prophylaxis provides another means of prevention in those with immunocompromise. A combination of tixagevimab and cilgavimab (Evusheld [AstraZeneca Cambridge, United Kingdom]) was granted emergency use authorization for preexposure prophylaxis at the end of 2021, but questions remained regarding how this would be tolerated and the side effects associated with its use. Objectives: Our aim was to evaluate the safety and tolerability of Evusheld in patients with CVID from our tri-site institution. Methods: We performed an institutional review board-approved, retrospective chart review of patients with common variable immunodeficiency (CVID) who received Evusheld before March 26, 2022. Results: Of the 45 patients with CVID who received Evusheld, 41 (91%) received the recommended full dose of 600 mg. The majority of patients (39 of 45 [87%]) tolerated Evusheld without adverse events. The adverse events reported included immediate injection site pain, fatigue and cough, an episode of shingles, and chest pain. Conclusions: This is an initial report on the safety and tolerability of Evusheld injections in patients with CVID. The majority of patients tolerated the injections without adverse events. For patients with reported chest pain, the results of a subsequent cardiac workup were negative. The efficacy of Evusheld could not be evaluated owing to the short median follow-up of this study (19 days).

Combining Biologics Targeting Eosinophils (IL-5/IL-5R), IgE, and IL-4/IL-13 in Allergic and Inflammatory Diseases.

The indications for biologic therapy are expanding. Patients may benefit from different biologics for separate conditions or one condition with multiple pathogenic mechanisms targeted by different biologics. We sought to determine the frequency and safety of combining biologics targeting IgE, IL-5, IL-5R, and IL-4/IL-13 in patients referred to a large academic health system through retrospective chart review. Between January 1, 2015 and July 31, 2021, 25 patients receiving multiple biologics simultaneously were identified. Combinations included omalizumab + mepolizumab (n = 11), omalizumab + dupilumab (n = 6), omalizumab + benralizumab (n = 4), mepolizumab + dupilumab (n = 3), and omalizumab + dupilumab + mepolizumab (n = 1). Sixteen patients were receiving multiple biologics for the same condition, most commonly asthma (n = 10). Nine patients were treated for separate conditions, with chronic spontaneous urticaria and atopic dermatitis being the most common combination (n = 3). The median duration of combination biologic use was 17.5 months. There were no reports of anaphylaxis, other allergic reaction, immune dysfunction, pneumonia, or development of malignancy. The use of multiple biologics appears to be well tolerated in this case series. Prospective study is needed to better determine the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of this approach.

Current and emerging biologic therapies targeting eosinophilic disorders.

Eosinophilic disorders include a wide array of conditions in which eosinophils play a primary pathophysiologic role. While historically treated with corticosteroids and immunosuppressants, knowledge of eosinophil biology has led to the development of several biologics targeting eosinophils. In this review, we discuss the current US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved eosinophil-specific biologics targeting IL-5 (mepolizumab and reslizumab) and IL-5R (benralizumab) along with biologics under investigation targeting siglec-8 (lirentelimab). We discuss efficacy and safety data from trials of these medications in conditions including eosinophilic asthma, hypereosinophilic syndrome (HES), eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA), chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP), eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), and eosinophilic gastrointestinal disease (EGID). Additionally, we discuss case reports utilizing these medications in conditions including drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS), allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis (ABPA), and eosinophilic pneumonia, among others. While eosinophilic targeting biologic therapy has been successful in eosinophilic asthma, HES, EGPA, and CRSwNP leading to FDA approval for these conditions, trials treating EoE and EGID have been disappointing to date. Given the increasing number of trials utilizing these biologics, it will be imperative for the allergist-immunologist to stay up to date on the latest treatment options to provide the most optimal care for eosinophilic disorders.

Delayed systemic urticarial reactions following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination.

Background: As the vaccination campaign in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues, concerns with regard to adverse reactions to the vaccine remain. Although immediate hypersensitivity reactions have received much attention, delayed systemic urticarial reactions after vaccination can occur. Objective: To describe the clinical presentation, vaccine excipient skin testing results, and outcomes of subsequent COVID-19 vaccination in patients who experienced delayed systemic urticarial reactions after messenger RNA (mRNA) COVID-19 vaccination. Methods: This was a retrospective case series of 12 patients referred to the Mayo Clinics in Rochester, Minnesota, and Jacksonville, Florida, between January 19, 2021, and April 30, 2021, for evaluation of delayed systemic urticarial reactions after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination. Demographics, medical and allergic history, reaction details, vaccine excipient skin testing results (when performed), and the outcome after subsequent vaccination were collected for each patient. Results: The mean age of the patients was 52 years, all were white, and 9 (75%) were women. Half of the patients had a history of drug allergy, and one had a history of chronic spontaneous urticaria. Seven patients reacted to the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine and five reacted to the Moderna vaccine. Seven patients developed symptoms between 8 and 24 hours after vaccination. Nine patients required antihistamines for treatment. The median time to symptom resolution was 4 days. Nine patients underwent allergist-directed COVID-19 vaccine excipient skin testing, all of which were negative. Ten patients chose to receive their next mRNA COVID-19 vaccine dose, and four patients experienced recurrent delayed urticaria. Conclusion: Delayed systemic urticarial reactions after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination were not life-threatening, could be treated with antihistamines, and were not predicted with vaccine excipient skin testing. They were not a contraindication to subsequent vaccination, although patients should be counseled with regard to the possibility of recurrence.

Utility and futility of skin testing to address concerns surrounding messenger RNA coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine reactions.

BACKGROUND: The mechanism of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine hypersensitivity reactions is unknown. COVID-19 vaccine excipient skin testing has been used in evaluation of these reactions, but its utility in predicting subsequent COVID-19 vaccine tolerance is also unknown. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the utility of COVID-19 vaccine and vaccine excipient skin testing in both patients with an allergic reaction to their first messenger RNA COVID-19 vaccine dose and patients with a history of polyethylene glycol allergy who have not yet received a COVID-19 vaccine dose. METHODS: In this multicenter, retrospective review, COVID-19 vaccine and vaccine excipient skin testing was performed in patients referred to 1 of 3 large tertiary academic institutions. Patient medical records were reviewed after skin testing to determine subsequent COVID-19 vaccine tolerance. RESULTS: A total of 129 patients underwent skin testing, in whom 12 patients (9.3%) had positive results. There were 101 patients who received a COVID-19 vaccine after the skin testing, which was tolerated in 90 patients (89.1%) with no allergic symptoms, including 5 of 6 patients with positive skin testing results who received a COVID-19 vaccine after the skin testing. The remaining 11 patients experienced minor allergic symptoms after COVID-19 vaccination, none of whom required treatment beyond antihistamines. CONCLUSION: The low positivity rate of COVID-19 vaccine excipient skin testing and high rate of subsequent COVID-19 vaccine tolerance suggest a low utility of this method in evaluation of COVID-19 vaccine hypersensitivity reactions. Focus should shift to the use of existing vaccine allergy practice parameters, with consideration of graded dosing when necessary. On the basis of these results, strict avoidance of subsequent COVID-19 vaccination should be discouraged.

Perioperative Anaphylaxis.

Perioperative anaphylaxis is a potentially life-threatening and under-recognized event most commonly caused by antibiotics, neuromuscular blocking agents, dyes, latex, and disinfectants. This review provides updates in the epidemiology and pathogenesis of perioperative anaphylaxis, discusses culprit agents, and highlights the tenets of management including a comprehensive allergy evaluation.

Stable Rates of Low Vitamin D Status Among Children Despite Increased Testing: A Population-Based Study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the trends in testing and incidence of vitamin D deficiency/insufficiency in Olmsted County, Minnesota over a 16-year period. STUDY DESIGN: The Rochester Epidemiology Project (REP) was used to identify Olmsted County, Minnesota residents aged <19 years who had 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] levels measured between January 2, 2002 and December 31, 2017. Using each patient's first 25(OH)D measurement during this period, patients were categorized into 3 groups: <20 ng/mL, 20-50 ng/mL, and >50 ng/mL. Vitamin D deficiency/insufficiency was defined as a total 25(OH)D level of <20 ng/mL. RESULTS: There was a 42-fold increase in the proportion of the county's pediatric population tested each year, starting at 3.7 per 10 000 persons in 2002 and increasing to 156.1 per 10 000 persons in 2017. The largest increase in testing occurred in children aged ≥10 years, specifically the females in this age group, in whom we observed a 90-fold increase from 2002 to 2017. During the 16-year period, the incidence of vitamin D deficiency/insufficiency (per 10 000 persons) increased from 1.7 in 2002-2003 to 19.9 in 2016-2017, but the proportion that were tested and had vitamin D deficiency/insufficiency remained stable, with rates of 21.9% (95% CI, 16.1%-29.1%) in 2006-2007 and 18.5% (95% CI, 16.0%-21.2%) in 2016-2017. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of the county's pediatric population who underwent vitamin D testing increased from 2002 to 2017, in parallel to the increased incidence of vitamin D deficiency/insufficiency, but the proportion tested that had vitamin D deficiency/insufficiency remained stable over time.

Outcomes among patients with COVID-19 and asthma: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: It remains unclear if asthma is a risk factor associated with worse outcomes among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods: We performed a comprehensive database search for studies published from January 1, 2019, to October 2, 2020. We included studies that evaluated outcomes among patients with COVID-19 and underlying asthma. Outcomes of interest included the need for hospitalization, length of hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and death. The meta-analysis was conducted by using random-effects methodology. Results: A total of 389 studies were identified through data base searches. After abstract and full-text screening, 16 observational studies with 92,275 patients were included in the analysis. Of the 16 studies, 15 were retrospective and 1 was a prospective cohort study. The average age was 39.6 years, with 48% female patients. Six of the studies included pediatric patients, and one of these studies only evaluated pediatric patients. One study only evaluated pregnant patients. Among patients with COVID-19, the presence of asthma was not associated with any significant increase in risk of hospitalization (odds ratio [OR] 1.46 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.29-7.28]), length of hospitalization (1.59 days [-0.55 to 3.74]), ICU admission (OR 1.65 [95% CI, 0.56-4.17]), or death (OR 0.73 [95% CI, 0.38-1.40]). The overall risk of bias of the included studies was high. Conclusion: Among the patients with COVID-19, asthma did not seem to significantly increase the risk of hospitalization, length of hospitalization, ICU admission, or death.

EVALI: A Mimicker of COVID-19.

E-cigarette or vaping product use-associated lung injury (EVALI) is a respiratory illness that has significant overlap with the symptoms of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In the current pandemic, diagnosis of EVALI may be delayed because of anchoring bias when patients present with symptoms consistent with COVID-19. We present 3 cases of patients who were hospitalized with a presumed diagnosis of COVID-19 but were later diagnosed with EVALI.

Considerations for asthma management and viral transmission in the era of COVID-19.

Background: As the global COVID-19 pandemic has unfolded, there has been much debate surrounding the optimal management of patients with asthma who are at risk of or contract COVID-19, whether asthma and steroids are risk factors for severe COVID-19, and how transmissible the virus is among children. Objective: The objective of this study is to provide allergists and other clinicians with pearls pertaining to the management of patients with asthma in the setting of the COVID-19 pandemic and to provide some information regarding the risk of transmission among the pediatric population. Methods: Utilizing the case of one of our own patients with asthma who developed COVID-19 as context, we review the recent literature discussing the risk of COVID-19 in patients with asthma, the management of asthma medications in the time of the pandemic, and the risk of viral transmission. Results: Despite initial reports that asthma was a risk factor for developing severe COVID-19, subsequent investigation has shown that this is likely not true. Additionally, the use of systemic or inhaled glucocorticoids does not appear to increase the risk of severe COVID-19, but there is no evidence guiding the use of biologic therapy. There is conflicting evidence regarding the ability of children to transmit the virus. Conclusion: We provide pearls that asthma does not appear to be associated with an increased risk of COVID-19 and continued use of inhaled corticosteroids appears to be safe. While there is no evidence guiding the use of biologic therapies, a recent position paper suggests that they should be continued unless a patient contracts COVID-19, at which point they should be held until clinical recovery occurs.

Non-Hodgkin lymphoma presenting as acute pancreatitis: A rare occurrence.

Lymphoma often presents with extranodal manifestations. However, pancreatic involvement resulting in pancreatitis is rare. CD20-negative variants of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma are also rare and are more likely to present with extranodal involvement. Lymphoma should be considered in patients presenting with pancreatitis without traditional risk factors.

Determining the prevalence of cytomegalovirus infection in a cohort of preterm infants.

BACKGROUND: Preterm birth is a global public health problem that is a significant cause of infant morbidity and mortality. Congenital cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection has been proposed as a risk factor for preterm birth, but the rate of CMV in infants born preterm is unclear. CMV is the leading infectious cause of sensorineural hearing loss, which will affect 15% - 20% of congenitally infected infants later in their childhood. 90% of infected infants are asymptomatic at birth and are not recognized as at risk for CMV-associated deficits. OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of CMV infection in a large cohort of preterm infants. METHODS: DNA was extracted from cord blood, peripheral blood, saliva, and buccal swab samples collected from preterm infants. A total of 1200 unique DNA samples were tested for CMV using a nested PCR protocol. The proportions of preterm infants with CMV was compared by sample collection type, race, gender, and gestational age. RESULTS: A total of 37 infants tested positive for CMV (3.08%). After excluding twins, siblings, and infants older than two weeks at the time of sample collection, two out of 589 infants were CMV positive (0.3%), which was lower than the proportion of CMV observed in the general population. All positive samples came from buccal swabs. CONCLUSIONS: Our work suggests that while CMV infection may not be greater in preterm infants than in the general population, given the neurologic consequences of CMV in preterm infants, screening of this population may still be warranted. If so, our results suggest buccal swabs, collected at pregnancy or at birth, may be an ideal method for such a program.