A systematic review and expert Delphi Consensus recommendation on the use of vaccines in patients receiving dupilumab: A position paper of the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology.

BACKGROUND: Dupilumab is a monoclonal antibody that targets the interleukin (IL)-4 receptor alpha subunit, thus blocking the effects of IL-4 and IL-13, and has shown efficacy in treating various conditions including asthma, atopic dermatitis, eosinophilic esophagitis, and others. Because of its immune modulatory effects, clinical trials that studied dupilumab did not allow patients to receive live vaccines during the clinical trials because of an abundance of caution, and thus package inserts recommend that patients who are being treated with dupilumab should avoid live vaccines. Because dupilumab is now approved for use in patients from 6 months of age for the treatment of atopic dermatitis, this reported contraindication is now posing a clinical dilemma for patients and clinicians. OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review of literature on the safety and efficacy of vaccinations in patients who are receiving dupilumab and to provide expert guidance on the use of vaccines in patients who are receiving dupilumab. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed, and an expert Delphi Panel was assembled. RESULTS: The available literature on patients who received vaccinations while using dupilumab overall suggests that live vaccines are safe and that the vaccine efficacy, in general, is not affected by dupilumab. The expert Delphi panel agreed that the use of vaccines in patients receiving dupilumab was likely safe and effective. CONCLUSION: Vaccines (including live vaccines) can be administered to patients receiving dupilumab in a shared decision-making capacity.

Epicutaneous immunotherapy with Viaskin™ Peanut in toddlers: a plain language summary.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This is a summary of an article published in The New England Journal of Medicine about the EPITOPE clinical study, which tested a skin patch called ViaskinTM Peanut 250 µg (micrograms) as a treatment option for peanut allergy in children aged 1 through 3 years. The patch is a form of epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT), which is a new approach to allergen immunotherapy that delivers a small amount of peanut protein to the immune system through the skin. Viaskin Peanut is an investigational therapy, meaning it has not yet been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), that has been studied before in young children aged 4 through 11 years. In those studies, the children who received the patch were desensitized and were less likely to experience anaphylaxis when they ate peanut at the end of the study. The EPITOPE study included children aged 1 through 3 years with peanut allergy and looked at how well the peanut patch worked and how safe it was compared to a patch with no medicine (placebo, no medicine) after 12 months. WHAT WERE THE KEY TAKEAWAYS?: The study showed that the peanut patch was better in desensitizing children to peanuts than the placebo patch. Most of the children in the study who received the peanut patch for 12 months (the treatment group) were able to eat and tolerate more peanut at the end of the study than those who received only the placebo patch (the control group). This demonstrates that the children in the treatment group were less likely to have an allergic reaction if they ate peanut by accident at the end of the study. The children in the treatment group also had less severe symptoms when they were given peanut during the oral food challenges at the end of the study. Most children in both groups experienced side effects. Mild to moderate local skin reactions where the patch was applied were most common. These side effects happened less often and were less serious over the 12-month treatment period. WHAT WERE THE MAIN CONCLUSIONS REPORTED BY THE RESEARCHERS?: Overall, these results show the peanut patch may be a possible treatment option to help desensitize young children with peanut allergy to peanut.

Anaphylaxis: A 2023 practice parameter update.

This practice parameter update focuses on 7 areas in which there are new evidence and new recommendations. Diagnostic criteria for anaphylaxis have been revised, and patterns of anaphylaxis are defined. Measurement of serum tryptase is important for diagnosis of anaphylaxis and to identify underlying mast cell disorders. In infants and toddlers, age-specific symptoms may differ from older children and adults, patient age is not correlated with reaction severity, and anaphylaxis is unlikely to be the initial reaction to an allergen on first exposure. Different community settings for anaphylaxis require specific measures for prevention and treatment of anaphylaxis. Optimal prescribing and use of epinephrine autoinjector devices require specific counseling and training of patients and caregivers, including when and how to administer the epinephrine autoinjector and whether and when to call 911. If epinephrine is used promptly, immediate activation of emergency medical services may not be required if the patient experiences a prompt, complete, and durable response. For most medical indications, the risk of stopping or changing beta-blocker or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor medication may exceed the risk of more severe anaphylaxis if the medication is continued, especially in patients with insect sting anaphylaxis. Evaluation for mastocytosis, including a bone marrow biopsy, should be considered for adult patients with severe insect sting anaphylaxis or recurrent idiopathic anaphylaxis. After perioperative anaphylaxis, repeat anesthesia may proceed in the context of shared decision-making and based on the history and results of diagnostic evaluation with skin tests or in vitro tests when available, and supervised challenge when necessary.

The Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters GRADE guidelines for the medical management of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis.

These evidence-based guidelines support patients, clinicians, and other stakeholders in decisions about the use of intranasal corticosteroids (INCS), biologics, and aspirin therapy after desensitization (ATAD) for the management of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP). It is important to note that the current evidence on surgery for CRSwNP was not assessed for this guideline nor were management options other than INCS, biologics, and ATAD. The Allergy-Immunology Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel balanced to include the views of multiple stakeholders and to minimize potential biases. Systematic reviews for each management option informed the guideline. The guideline panel used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to inform and develop recommendations. The guideline panel reached consensus on the following statements: (1) In people with CRSwNP, the guideline panel suggests INCS rather than no INCS (conditional recommendation, low certainty of evidence). (2) In people with CRSwNP, the guideline panel suggests biologics rather than no biologics (conditional recommendation, moderate certainty of evidence). (3) In people with aspirin (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug)-exacerbated respiratory disease, the guideline panel suggests ATAD rather than no ATAD (conditional recommendation, moderate certainty of evidence). The conditions for each recommendation are discussed in the guideline.

Asthma and food allergy: A nuanced relationship.

Asthma is one of the most common chronic health conditions that affect children and adults. It is associated with many comorbid conditions, particularly those along the allergic spectrum, such as atopic dermatitis, allergic rhinitis, and food allergy. The relationship between asthma and food allergies involves prognosis, management, and understanding of risk for severe reactions. Both conditions are heterogeneous and can change over time, which necessitates an individualized approach toward counseling and management. Long-standing associations of an increased risk for food allergy fatality in individuals who have asthma is not as straightforward or concrete as previously believed. It is important for clinicians to have a current understanding of the evidence about the relationship between asthma and food allergy to participate in shared decision-making and counseling with patients. This review will offer background and new perspective surrounding the nuanced relationship of asthma and food allergy.

Topical corticosteroids for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis: GRADE systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP) is associated with a significant disease burden. The optimal use of and administration route for intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) when managing CRSwNP are unclear. OBJECTIVE: We systematically synthesized the evidence addressing INCS for CRSwNP. METHODS: We searched studies archived in Medline, Embase, and Central from database inception until September 1, 2021, for randomized controlled trials comparing INCS using any delivery method to placebo or other INCS administration types. Paired reviewers screened records, abstracted data, and rated risk of bias (CLARITY revision of Cochrane Risk of Bias version 1 tool) independently and in duplicate. We synthesized the evidence for each outcome using random effects network meta-analyses. We critically appraised the evidence following the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. RESULTS: We analyzed 61 randomized controlled trials (7176 participants, 8 interventions). Sinusitis-related quality of life might improve with INCS rinse (mean difference [MD] -6.83, 95% confidence interval [CI] -11.94 to -1.71) and exhalation delivery system (EDS) (MD -7.86, 95% CI -14.64 to -1.08) compared to placebo (both low certainty evidence). Nasal obstruction symptoms are likely improved when receiving INCS via stent/dressing (MD -0.31, 95% CI -0.54 to -0.08), spray (MD -0.51, 95% CI -0.61 to -0.41), and EDS (MD -0.35, 95% CI -0.51 to -0.18) (all moderate to high certainty) compared to placebo. We found no important differences in adverse effects among interventions (moderate certainty for INCS spray, very low to low certainty for others). CONCLUSIONS: Multiple delivery forms of INCS are viable therapeutic options for CRSwNP, resulting in improvement of patient-important outcomes. INCS via stent, spray, and EDS appear to be beneficial across the widest range of considered outcomes.

Is This Medication Safe for My Child? How to Discuss Safety of Commonly Used Medications With Parents.

All drugs have potential side effects, but thoughtful use can maximize benefits while minimizing risks. Children should not be considered just small adults regarding drug safety because their growth and development are discordant with their ability to sense and self-report drug side effects. Detecting side effects requires vigilance and education from prescribers to parents, who are tasked with monitoring their child over time. A drug's safety profile is published in the package label after pivotal trials are conducted in relatively small and sometimes narrow segments of the population during the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval process. Drug safety profiles can change as data from postmarketing reports and long-term monitoring during phase IV trials emerge. As such, prescribers are obligated to maintain current understanding of any changes to drug labels. Discussing potential side effects, monitoring, and when to report concerns can be a time-consuming process during patient encounters. This review offers current information regarding potential side effects of some of the most commonly used medications for allergic conditions, asthma, and atopic dermatitis. This information and discussion will hopefully assist clinicians in their conversations with parents, including advice surrounding prescribing medication to minimize adverse effects, parental monitoring, and documentation.

Social media and its impact on health care.

OBJECTIVE: Social media has fundamentally changed how the world shares and receives information. This review offers a perspective for the practicing clinician regarding how patients are being influenced by their online interactions and considerations for proactively discussing medical decision making with patients. DATA SOURCES: Literature search of PubMed database and online published market research data surrounding social media use. STUDY SELECTIONS: Peer-reviewed studies, Pew research data, and editorials in the English language were selected and reviewed. RESULTS: There has been a substantial increase in the breadth and depth of literature surrounding the use of social media by patients and medical professionals. Increased focus on how it contributes to medical decision making and patient-clinician interactions has occurred in recent years. The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has highlighted the various sources of misinformation and disinformation and how they impact care on many levels. Best practices have been established to assist medical professionals in developing an online presence to combat misinformation or address individual patients. CONCLUSION: There is growing understanding and recognition of the myriad of ways in which social media is impacting health care. Health care professionals from all backgrounds need to increase their understanding of these complex interactions to best assist patients with their medical decision making.