Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 93
Filter
1.
Expert Opin Drug Saf ; 23(9): 1115-1126, 2024 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39129459

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Biological medications have significantly improved the prognosis of psoriasis patients. All biological drugs (except infliximab) for psoriasis require subcutaneous (SC) administration. Adverse events of biologic drug treatment include injection site reactions. ISRs are a local phenomenon characterized by swelling, erythema, pruritus, and pain around the injection site. AREAS COVERED: We conducted a review to analyze the differences between the ISRs of various biologics approved for psoriasis. Specifically, the review focused on anti-TNF-α, anti-IL12/23, anti-IL-17, and anti-IL-23 drugs. EXPERT OPINION: Etanercept and adalimumab have reported ISR rates of 37% and 20%, respectively, with erythema, pruritus, pain, and irritation being the most common. Citrate free (CF) solution and thinner needles have reduced ISR associated with adalimumab. Ustekinumab showed a low risk of ISR. Regarding secukinumab and ixekizumab, pain was found to be the most common ISR. The introduction of CF ixekizumab formulation has shown promise in reducing ISRs associated with ixekizumab. The risk of ISR appears insignificant with bimekizumab, brodalumab, and anti-IL23 drugs, with ISR rates ranging from less than 1% to 7.1%. The choice of biologic agent should consider ISR risk. Education on injection techniques and the use of single-dose autoinjectors/pens can mitigate ISR risk.


Subject(s)
Biological Products , Injection Site Reaction , Psoriasis , Severity of Illness Index , Humans , Psoriasis/drug therapy , Injection Site Reaction/etiology , Injection Site Reaction/epidemiology , Biological Products/administration & dosage , Biological Products/adverse effects , Injections, Subcutaneous , Dermatologic Agents/administration & dosage , Dermatologic Agents/adverse effects , Biological Therapy/methods , Biological Therapy/adverse effects
2.
Dermatol Surg ; 50(8): 731-738, 2024 Aug 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38595129

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: With the continuous increasing availability of new filler products, each hyaluronic acid filler brand has distinctive pharmacokinetics, which may be associated with different complications. Therefore, the long-term safety of new generations of fillers should be evaluated. OBJECTIVE: This prospective, multicenter, observational, postmarketing study ( ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04738019) aimed to investigate the incidence of delayed-onset nodules and adverse reactions after the injection of new hyaluronic acid fillers (YYS series) into the facial skin. METHODS: Subjects scheduled to receive an injection YYS series filler were followed up for 52 weeks. The authors aimed to determine the incidence of a self-reported delayed-onset nodule-a visible or palpable nodule or mass at the injection site that was detected beyond the 14th day following the injection-during the 1-year follow-up period. RESULTS: Among the 1,022 subjects who received an injection of the YYS series, the incidences of delayed-onset nodules were 0% for YYS 360, YYS 540, and YYS 720. A 0.21% incidence (1 delayed hypersensitivity reaction) of a delayed-onset adverse reaction was noted for YYS 720, although none were reported for YYS 360 and YYS 540. CONCLUSION: In this study, a notably low frequency of adverse reactions associated with the YYS series was observed.


Subject(s)
Cosmetic Techniques , Dermal Fillers , Hyaluronic Acid , Humans , Hyaluronic Acid/adverse effects , Hyaluronic Acid/administration & dosage , Prospective Studies , Female , Dermal Fillers/adverse effects , Dermal Fillers/administration & dosage , Middle Aged , Male , Adult , Cosmetic Techniques/adverse effects , Product Surveillance, Postmarketing/statistics & numerical data , Aged , Injection Site Reaction/epidemiology , Injection Site Reaction/etiology , Follow-Up Studies , Face
3.
Actas Dermosifiliogr ; 115(5): T458-T465, 2024 May.
Article in English, Spanish | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38423508

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Patient esthetic satisfaction following facial fillers is an essential topic that should be studied as the number of individuals seeking treatment increases. The face is an essential component of the human body that is frequently associated with beauty, youthfulness, and health. Individuals may seek facial augmentation with fillers for a variety of reasons, such as congenital, acquired by means of aging or disease, or current aesthetic trends. OBJECTIVE: The aim is to assess patient's aesthetic satisfaction and description of common clinical complications in relation to the facial filler injections. METHOD: A cross sectional survey using a questionnaire derived from the global aesthetic improvement scale and WHO quality of life scale, convenience sampling was used to recruit patients attending cosmetic clinics, descriptive analysis and Chi-square methods were used to analyze the data. RESULTS: In the study, 500 female participants, with an average age of 28.48 years, were included. Over 90% reported improvement after filler treatment, ranging from improved to very much improved. A statistically significant correlation was observed between patient satisfaction and the number of filler treatments and the anatomical injection site. However, no statistically significant correlation was found when considering age groups. Local side effects, such as swelling and redness at the injection site, were common but generally mild and of short duration. CONCLUSION: Although the satisfaction level is currently high, practitioners in the field need to pay more attention to this important outcome, since understanding the patient's motivation and expectation before proceeding with the procedure is very important and can contribute significantly in determining patient satisfaction with the result.


Subject(s)
Cosmetic Techniques , Dermal Fillers , Face , Patient Satisfaction , Humans , Female , Cross-Sectional Studies , Adult , Dermal Fillers/adverse effects , Cosmetic Techniques/adverse effects , Middle Aged , Young Adult , Esthetics , Adolescent , Aged , Surveys and Questionnaires , Injection Site Reaction/etiology , Injection Site Reaction/epidemiology
4.
J Dermatolog Treat ; 35(1): 2304027, 2024 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38240111

ABSTRACT

Background: Injection site reaction (ISR) is a local phenomenon defined as a constellation of symptoms, including swelling, erythema, pruritus, and pain around the site of injection.Objective: ISR is reported as a frequent adverse event after subcutaneous injection (SCI) of several biologics.Methods: We performed an observational real-life study to compare dupilumab and tralokinumab as regards ISR, analysing frequency, duration and intensity of symptoms related to SCI. From January 2023 to June 2023, we enrolled adult patients affected by moderate to severe AD and being on dupilumab or tralokinumab treatment. A 12 items questionnaire was administered to all enrolled patients.Results and conclusions: Three hundred and ninety-two patients were included. ISR was a frequent occurrence in both the treatment groups, with tralokinumab causing ISR more frequently than dupilumab. However, the reactions were generally mild and no patient stopped therapy.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized , Antibodies, Monoclonal , Dermatitis, Atopic , Injection Site Reaction , Adult , Humans , Antibodies, Monoclonal/adverse effects , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/adverse effects , Dermatitis, Atopic/complications , Double-Blind Method , Injection Site Reaction/etiology , Injection Site Reaction/epidemiology , Severity of Illness Index , Treatment Outcome
5.
J Cutan Med Surg ; 27(4): 358-367, 2023.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37533141

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Biologic agents are emerging as an important treatment option for immune-mediated diseases. Injection site reactions following subcutaneous injection of biologic agents is not well described in the literature. OBJECTIVE: To summarize injection site reaction data in phase 3 trials of all biologic agents. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL databases were systematically searched on February 8, 2022. Proportional meta-analysis was conducted to summarize injection site reaction prevalence for each biologic. RESULTS: There were 158 articles included in the review. The most common types of injection site reactions were erythema (42.8%), unspecified reaction (23.3%), pain (12.4%), and pruritus (5.7%). No patients discontinued their treatment due to injection site reactions in 39 of the 48 studies that reported on discontinuation data. There were 16 biologics included in meta-analysis across 80 eligible studies. The biologics with the highest point prevalence of patients reporting injection site reactions were Canakinumab (15.5%; 294 patients), Dupilumab (11.4%; 1888 patients), Etanercept (11.4%; 4363 patients), and Ixekizumab (11.2%; 2205 patients). The biologics with the lowest point prevalence of injection site reactions were Risankizumab (0.8%; 707 patients), Brodalumab (1.3%; 1365 patients), Guselkumab (1.3%; 1852 patients), Secukinumab (1.9%; 1277 patients). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of injection site reaction in response to biologics ranges from 0.08 to 15.5%. Canakinumab, Dupilumab, Etanercept, and Ixekizumab had the highest prevalence of injection site reactions. Risankizumab, Brodalumab, Guselkumab, and Secukinumab had the lowest prevalence of injection site reactions. Recommendations are made regarding the improvement of adverse event reporting to better understand the epidemiology of injection site reactions.


Subject(s)
Biological Products , Psoriasis , Humans , Etanercept/adverse effects , Injection Site Reaction/epidemiology , Injection Site Reaction/etiology , Biological Factors , Biological Products/adverse effects , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
6.
Hum Vaccin Immunother ; 19(2): 2239088, 2023 08 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37551885

ABSTRACT

BCG vaccination and revaccination are increasingly being considered for the protection of adolescents and adults against tuberculosis and, more broadly, for the off-target protective immunological effects against other infectious and noninfectious diseases. Within an international randomized controlled trial of BCG vaccination in healthcare workers (the BRACE trial), we evaluated the incidence of local and serious adverse events, as well as the impact of previous BCG vaccination on local injection site reactions (BCG revaccination). Prospectively collected data from 99% (5351/5393) of participants in Australia, Brazil, Spain, The Netherlands and the UK was available for analysis. Most BCG recipients experienced the expected self-limiting local injection site reactions (pain, tenderness, erythema, swelling). BCG injection site itch was an additional common initial local symptom reported in 49% of BCG recipients. Compared to BCG vaccination in BCG-naïve individuals, BCG revaccination was associated with increased frequency of mild injection site reactions, as well as earlier onset and shorter duration of erythema and swelling, which were generally self-limiting. Injection site abscess and regional lymphadenopathy were the most common adverse events and had a benign course. Self-resolution occurred within a month in 80% of abscess cases and 100% of lymphadenopathy cases. At a time when BCG is being increasingly considered for its off-target effects, our findings indicate that BCG vaccination and revaccination have an acceptable safety profile in adults.


Subject(s)
Abscess , BCG Vaccine , Adolescent , Adult , Humans , BCG Vaccine/adverse effects , Health Personnel , Immunization, Secondary/adverse effects , Injection Site Reaction/epidemiology , Vaccination/adverse effects
7.
J Glob Health ; 13: 06008, 2023 Feb 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36757823

ABSTRACT

Background: Understanding the incidence pattern of cutaneous reactions is crucial for promoting COVID-19 vaccination. We aimed to report the global incidence pattern of, and factors associated with common cutaneous reactions related to COVID-19 vaccination in real-world settings. Methods: We searched five databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, CNKI, and Wanfang) from inception to May 13, 2022, for studies reporting the incidence of common cutaneous reactions related to COVID-19 vaccines in real-world settings. The outcomes were the systematic skin reactions (rash and urticaria) and the local injection site reactions (pain, swelling, redness, and erythema). We conducted random-effects meta-analyses and explored associated factors using multi-step statistical analyses. Results: We included 35 studies and assessed 2 549 968 participants from 23 countries. The pooled incidence of overall systemic skin reactions was 3.8% (95% confidence interval (CI) = 2.4%-5.5%) with short duration (about one week). Specifically, the pooled incidence rates of rash and urticaria were 3.0% (95% CI = 2.1%-3.9%) and 1.1% (95% CI = 0.7%-1.5%), respectively. For overall local injection site reactions, the pooled incidence was 72.4% (95% CI = 65.7%-78.7%) with short duration (1 to 4.5 days). Except for local pain (72.2%, 95% CI = 65.3%-78.5%), other localized reactions had low incidence, including swelling (13.3%, 95% CI = 9.5%-17.7%), redness (11.5%, 95% CI = 5.7%-19.0%), and erythema (5.8%, 95% CI = 0.7%-15.4%). Geographically, different distribution patterns were observed for these reactions. Regarding associated factors, mRNA vaccines showed lower incidence of urticaria (P < 0.001). Asia population showed higher incidence of urticaria (P < 0.001). We observed lower incidence rates of overall local injection site reactions and pain among inactivated vaccines (P < 0.001). We found no significant difference among reactions between the first and the second dose of vaccines. Conclusions: We examined the global incidence pattern of common cutaneous reactions related to COVID-19 vaccination and found low incidence and short duration of systemic skin reactions and local injection site reactions (except for pain); discrepancies in these reactions were observed across different vaccine types. The cutaneous side effects related to COVID-19 vaccination do not seem to cause concern. Registration: PROSPERO: CRD42021258012.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Exanthema , Urticaria , Vaccines , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Incidence , Injection Site Reaction/epidemiology , Injection Site Reaction/etiology , Pain , Vaccination/adverse effects
8.
Int J Rheum Dis ; 26(1): 108-115, 2023 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36253032

ABSTRACT

AIM: YLB113 biosimilar was evaluated in an open-label extension single-arm study to assess long-term safety, efficacy, and immunogenicity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We also report post-hoc results on the incidence of injection-site reactions (ISRs) and injection-site erythema (ISE) from a phase III study. METHOD: Participants from the phase III, double-blind, randomized, 96 week equivalence study who completed the final visit received 50 mg YLB113 subcutaneously every 2 weeks. Key safety end points were assessed through adverse events (AEs), ISRs, ISE, and anti-drug antibody (ADA) incidence. The efficacy end point was change from baseline in Disease Activity Score 28-joint count (DAS28) over time. RESULTS: Of 201 participants, 184 (91.5%) completed the study. Treatment-emergent AEs were experienced by 93.5% and severe AEs by 10.0% of participants. The discontinuation rate due to AEs was 2.0%. Overall, 20.0% of participants reported an incidence of ISRs throughout the open-label extension study. Two participants developed ADAs, and none developed neutralizing ADAs at any time after study drug administration. The overall DAS28 (mean ± SD) change was 2.22 ± 0.95 at the study transition, 2.10 ± 0.91 at week 72, and 2.06 ± 0.89 at the end of the study. In the post-hoc analysis, YLB113 showed a statistically significant lower incidence of ISRs (10 [3.8%], P < 0.0001) and ISE (5 [1.9%], P < 0.0001) compared with the reference product Enbrel®. CONCLUSION: YLB113 demonstrated long-term safety and sustained efficacy for up to 96 weeks. Patients on YLB113 experienced significantly lower ISRs and ISE in a post-hoc analysis of the phase III study when compared with reference product.


Subject(s)
Antirheumatic Agents , Arthritis, Rheumatoid , Biosimilar Pharmaceuticals , Humans , Etanercept/adverse effects , Antirheumatic Agents/adverse effects , Biosimilar Pharmaceuticals/adverse effects , Treatment Outcome , Arthritis, Rheumatoid/diagnosis , Arthritis, Rheumatoid/drug therapy , Arthritis, Rheumatoid/chemically induced , Antibodies , Injection Site Reaction/diagnosis , Injection Site Reaction/epidemiology , Injection Site Reaction/etiology , Double-Blind Method
9.
J Cosmet Dermatol ; 21(9): 3682-3688, 2022 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35775860

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: As Coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) still continues to affect humanity worldwide, different types of COVID-19 vaccines are being administered to maintain immunization against COVID-19. As both the inactivated and mRNA vaccines are now being applied prevalently, systemic adverse events along with cutaneous side effects are frequently being reported in the literature. AIM: In our study, we aimed to determine the cutaneous adverse effects of the inactivated (Sinovac-CoronaVac) and mRNA (Pfizer-BioNTech) vaccines in healthcare providers in a tertiary referral hospital. METHODS: A web-based survey consisting of 26 questions related to the systemic and cutaneous side effects of the inactivated and mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, was formed. The online questionnaire was spread among the healthcare professionals working in a tertiary referral hospital via common instant messaging groups and e-mail. FINDINGS: A total number of 234 participants were included in the study. One hundred fifty-seven were female whereas 77 were male. The mean age was 31.51 years. Eighty-nine respondents reported to have at least one cutaneous side effect after COVID-19 vaccination. Most commonly observed cutaneous side effects were local injection site reactions. Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine at the first and second doses, was shown to have statistically significantly higher rates of systemic and cutaneous adverse events compared to the Sinovac-CoronaVac vaccine. RESULTS: Our study shows that both inactivated and mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are associated with transient local injection site reactions, no severe systemic or cutaneous adverse events were observed in our study population.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Vaccines , Adult , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Female , Health Personnel , Humans , Injection Site Reaction/epidemiology , Injection Site Reaction/etiology , Male , RNA, Messenger , Surveys and Questionnaires , Vaccines/adverse effects
10.
Dermatol Ther ; 35(6): e15452, 2022 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35293657

ABSTRACT

The coronavirus vaccine was developed to help overcome the COVID-19 crisis. This study aimed to identify the cutaneous side effects secondary to Pfizer-BioNTech and Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccines in the general population of Saudi Arabia and to list the risk factors for the development of cutaneous side effects. This cross-sectional study was conducted in 2021, self-administered surveys were distributed electronically through social media, and telephonic interviews were conducted with a sample size of 1000 participants. Data analysis was performed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. A total of 1021 patients (229 male and 722 female) aged 12 years or older were included. While 833 participants were medically free, 188 had chronic illnesses. While 802 participants were not taking any medications, 219 were taking medications regularly. Oxford-Astra Zeneca and Pfizer BioNTech vaccines were administered to 319 and 702 participants, respectively. One-hundred and twenty-five participants previously had COVID-19 infection and 407 were exposed to a PCR positive case of COVID. Six hundred and fifty-nine patients (64.5%) reported experiencing injection site reactions: 606 (59.4%) had injection site pain, 168 (16.5%) had injection site swelling, and 107 (10.5%) had injection site redness. Only 51 patients (5%) experienced cutaneous side effects after injection. A significant association was found between chronic illnesses and cutaneous side effects post-vaccine (9% vs. 4.1%; p value = 0.005). Patients on medications showed a higher rate of symptoms (8.2% vs. 4.1%; p value = 0.005). Age, gender, vaccine types, and history of COVID-19 infection were not significantly associated with cutaneous side effects post-vaccine.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Injection Site Reaction/epidemiology , Male , SARS-CoV-2 , Saudi Arabia/epidemiology
11.
BMC Cancer ; 22(1): 148, 2022 Feb 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35123433

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is the most common type of leukemia in North America. Previous studies have shown improved progression free survival (PFS) and response rates in unfit patients treated with obinutuzumab compared to other regimens. The aim of this study was to evaluate the obinutuzumab-chlorambucil regimen in the context of historical treatments and first-dose infusion reactions at CancerCare Manitoba (CCMB). METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted for patients treated with obinutuzumab from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2017 at CCMB. A minimum data set was extracted for patients treated with other front-line therapies. Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate patient demographics, toxicity, duration and dosing of obinutuzumab treatment. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to evaluate time-to-next-treatment (TTNT), overall survival (OS) and PFS for patients treated with obinutuzumab. A multivariable logistic regression model was used to investigate associations between infusion related reactions (IRRs) and age at treatment, pre-treatment lymphocyte count, cumulative illness rating scale (CIRS) and receipt of prior chemotherapy. RESULTS: Forty seven percent of patients receiving frontline therapy received chlorambucil and obinutuzumab. Sixty-seven patients were treated with obinutuzumab and consisted of 36 males (53.7%) and 31 females (46.3%) with 29 patients (43.3%) over age 75 years. Rates of grade 3 and 4 obinutuzumab IRRs were lower (6%) compared to the CLL11 clinical trial (20%) due to local practices including slower infusion rates and using chlorambucil before starting obinutuzumab treatment. Many patients had difficulty tolerating the full dosage of chlorambucil. Only 26 patients (38.8%) had their dose of chlorambucil escalated to the full dose of 0.5 mg/kg. In addition, only 18 patients (26.9%) received all doses of obinutuzumab and all 12 doses of chlorambucil. CONCLUSIONS: In summary, first dose infusion reactions with obinutuzumab can be markedly reduced by using chlorambucil to decrease the lymphocyte count before obinutuzumab and by using a very slow initial obinutuzumab infusion rate. Modifications in chlorambucil dosing and obinutuzumab administration can improve tolerance without significant loss in efficacy.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/administration & dosage , Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols/administration & dosage , Chlorambucil/administration & dosage , Injection Site Reaction/epidemiology , Leukemia, Lymphocytic, Chronic, B-Cell/drug therapy , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Female , Humans , Injection Site Reaction/etiology , Leukemia, Lymphocytic, Chronic, B-Cell/mortality , Male , Manitoba , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies , Treatment Outcome
13.
Clin Infect Dis ; 74(4): 591-596, 2022 03 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34086881

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are administered to 2 million individuals per day in the United States under US Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization. METHODS: Observational cohort study of hospital employees who received their first SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination between 14 December 2020 and 8 January 2021, including employees who reported onset of an injection site reaction ≥48 hours after administration of their first or second dose to an employee hotline. RESULTS: Thirteen female employees who received the mRNA-1273 vaccine (Moderna) during the first 3 weeks of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine rollout at San Francisco General Hospital reported a pruritic rash at the injection site appearing 3 -9 days after receipt of their initial dose. Five had milder or similar reactions with earlier onset after the second dose. One additional female employee reported this delayed reaction only after the second dose. None reported serious adverse events or had symptoms severe enough to seek medical attention. These cases represented 1.1% of the 1275 female employees who received their first mRNA-1273 dose and 2.0% of the 557 who were aged 31 -45 years during this initial vaccine rollout. None of 675 males who initiated mRNA-1273 or 3612 employees of any sex who initiated BNT162b (Pfizer) vaccination during this period reported delayed-onset reactions. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that delayed-onset, injection site pruritic rashes after mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine administration, lasting up to 1 week, occur commonly in females, do not lead to serious sequela, and should not deter receipt of the second vaccine dose.


Subject(s)
2019-nCoV Vaccine mRNA-1273 , COVID-19 , Injection Site Reaction/epidemiology , 2019-nCoV Vaccine mRNA-1273/adverse effects , Adult , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Cohort Studies , Female , Hospitals , Humans , Incidence , Male , Middle Aged , SARS-CoV-2 , United States/epidemiology
14.
Ann Med ; 53(1): 1960-1968, 2021 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34726095

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Hospitalizations for severe injection-related infections (SIRI), such as endocarditis, osteomyelitis, and skin and soft tissue infections (SSTI) are increasingly common. People who inject drugs (PWID) experiencing SIRIs often receive inadequate substance use disorder (SUD) treatment and lack of access to harm reduction services. This translates into lengthy hospitalizations with high rates of patient-directed discharge, readmissions, and post-hospitalization mortality. The purpose of this study was to describe the development of an integrated "SIRI Team" and its initial barriers and facilitators to success. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Jackson SIRI Team was developed to improve both hospital and patient-level outcomes for individuals hospitalized with SIRIs at Jackson Memorial Hospital, a 1550-bed public hospital in Miami, Florida, United States. The SIRI Team provides integrated infectious disease and SUD treatment across the healthcare system starting from the inpatient setting and continuing for 90-days post-hospital discharge. The team uses a harm reduction approach, provides care coordination, focuses on access to medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD), and utilizes a variety of infection and addiction treatment modalities to suit each individual patient. RESULTS: Over the initial 8-months of the SIRI Team, 21 patients were treated with 20 surviving until discharge. Infections included osteomyelitis, endocarditis, bacteraemia/fungemia, SSTIs, and septic arthritis. All patients had OUD and 95% used stimulants. All patients were discharged on MOUD and 95% completed their prescribed antibiotic course. At 90-days post-discharge, 25% had been readmitted and 70% reported taking MOUD. CONCLUSIONS: A model of integrated infectious disease and SUD care for the treatment of SIRIs has the potential to improve infection and addiction outcomes. Providing attentive, patient-centered care, using a harm reduction approach can facilitate engagement of this marginalized population with the healthcare system.KEY MESSAGESIntegrated infectious disease and addiction treatment is a novel approach to treating severe injection-related infections.Harm reduction should be applied to treating patients with severe injection-related infections with a goal of facilitating antibiotic completion, remission from substance use disorder, and reducing hospital readmissions.


Subject(s)
Endocarditis/epidemiology , Harm Reduction , Injection Site Reaction/epidemiology , Opioid-Related Disorders/complications , Osteomyelitis/epidemiology , Syringes , Adult , Aftercare , Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Endocarditis/diagnosis , Endocarditis/microbiology , Female , Humans , Male , Osteomyelitis/diagnosis , Osteomyelitis/etiology , Osteomyelitis/microbiology , Patient Discharge , Soft Tissue Infections/drug therapy , Substance Abuse, Intravenous/complications , United States/epidemiology
15.
Int Immunopharmacol ; 101(Pt B): 108351, 2021 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34801416

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of vaccine side effects plays an important role in public perception about vaccination programs. This study was designed to investigate the side effects of the first dose of COVID-19 vaccine; Sputnik-V, AZD-1222, and Covaxin. METHODS: A study was performed to evaluate the side effects of these vaccine among 503 health care workers in Birjand (Iran). Our study used the questionnaire consisted of 4 main categories including demographic data, previous COVID-19 infection, vaccine information, and local and systemic side effects of vaccines. RESULTS: 81.9%, 88.8%, and 92.9% of people who have been vaccinated with Sputnik-V, AZD1222, and Covaxin vaccines, respectively, have reported at least one side effect. The prevalence of systemic side effects in AZD-1222 vaccine was higher than Sputnik V and Covaxin vaccines. Injection site pain (62.1%), fatigue (43.9%), muscle pain (42.5%), and fever (40.6%) were the most common side effects in all three vaccines. Side effect frequency was higher in the female group (90.6%) than the male group (79.5%). The prevalence of side effects with Sputnik V and Covaxin vaccines was reduced in the elderly. Moreover, the prevalence of side effects was higher in the case of convalescent patients (92.4 %) than in the group with no history of infection. The prevalence of side effects was higher in person with a BMI above 25 in the AZD-1222 and Covaxin vaccines. CONCLUSIONS: The most common side effects of the Sputnik-V, AZD-1222, and Covaxin vaccine among Birjand (Iran) healthcare workers were injection site pain, muscle pain, fatigue, fever, and headache. Age and gender were the most important variables in the prevalence of vaccine side effects.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , COVID-19/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Adult , Age Factors , Aged , Cross-Sectional Studies , Fatigue/epidemiology , Fatigue/etiology , Female , Fever/epidemiology , Fever/etiology , Headache/epidemiology , Headache/etiology , Health Personnel , Hospitals, University , Humans , Injection Site Reaction/epidemiology , Injection Site Reaction/etiology , Iran/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , Myalgia/epidemiology , Myalgia/etiology , Prevalence , Sex Characteristics , Young Adult
17.
JAMA Dermatol ; 157(6): 716-720, 2021 06 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33978670

ABSTRACT

Importance: In response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, 2 mRNA vaccines (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna) received emergency use authorization from the US Food and Drug Administration in December 2020. Some patients in the US have developed delayed localized cutaneous vaccine reactions that have been dubbed "COVID arm." Objective: To describe the course of localized cutaneous injection-site reactions to the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine, subsequent reactions to the second vaccine dose, and to characterize the findings of histopathologic examination of the reaction. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective case series study was performed at Yale New Haven Hospital, a tertiary medical center in New Haven, Connecticut, with 16 patients referred with localized cutaneous injection-site reactions from January 20 through February 12, 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: We collected each patient's demographic information, a brief relevant medical history, clinical course, and treatment (if any); and considered the findings of a histopathologic examination of 1 skin biopsy specimen. Results: Of 16 patients (median [range] age, 38 [25-89] years; 13 [81%] women), 14 patients self-identified as White and 2 as Asian. The delayed localized cutaneous reactions developed in a median (range) of 7 (2-12) days after receiving the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine. These reactions occurred at or near the injection site and were described as pruritic, painful, and edematous pink plaques. None of the participants had received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. Results of a skin biopsy specimen demonstrated a mild predominantly perivascular mixed infiltrate with lymphocytes and eosinophils, consistent with a dermal hypersensitivity reaction. Of participants who had a reaction to first vaccine dose (15 of 16 patients), most (11 patients) developed a similar localized injection-site reaction to the second vaccine dose; most (10 patients) also developed the second reaction sooner as compared with the first-dose reaction. Conclusions and Relevance: Clinical and histopathologic findings of this case series study indicate that the localized injection-site reactions to the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine are a delayed hypersensitivity reaction. These reactions may occur sooner after the second dose, but they are self-limited and not associated with serious vaccine adverse effects. In contrast to immediate hypersensitivity reactions (eg, anaphylaxis, urticaria), these delayed reactions (dubbed "COVID arm") are not a contraindication to subsequent vaccination.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , COVID-19/prevention & control , Drug Eruptions/epidemiology , Injection Site Reaction/epidemiology , 2019-nCoV Vaccine mRNA-1273 , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Connecticut/epidemiology , Drug Eruptions/diagnosis , Drug Eruptions/drug therapy , Drug Eruptions/immunology , Female , Histamine Antagonists/therapeutic use , Humans , Injection Site Reaction/diagnosis , Injection Site Reaction/drug therapy , Injection Site Reaction/immunology , Male , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies , Skin/immunology , Skin/pathology
18.
Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk ; 21(7): 470-475, 2021 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33785299

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Daratumumab is an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody widely used for treating patients with newly diagnosed or relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. The subcutaneous formulation of daratumumab was developed with the purpose of minimizing the treatment burden (to patients and health care system) associated with intravenous daratumumab. Given its recent approval, there is a knowledge gap regarding the best practices that should be instituted for safe administration of subcutaneous daratumumab. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed from August 2020 until November 2020 to identify patients either switched to or treated upfront (daratumumab naive) with any subcutaneous daratumumab-based treatment regimen. All patients received appropriate premedications per institutional standards of care. The study end points were to report real-world data regarding administration-related reaction rates (at or following discharge from infusion center), as well as compare their incidence rates to those noted in the COLUMBA study (historical cohort). RESULTS: The study included 58 patients, of whom 38% (n = 22) were daratumumab naive. The majority (84%, n = 49) received subcutaneous daratumumab in combination with various antimyeloma regimens. There were no cases of administration-related reactions at infusion center or after discharge irrespective of previous exposure to intravenous daratumumab. None of the patients included herein required rescue home medications or visited the emergency department within 24 to 48 hours after subcutaneous daratumumab administration. These translated into a significant difference in incidence of administration-related reactions compared with historical cohort (0% vs. 13%, P = .003). CONCLUSION: Subcutaneous daratumumab was extremely well tolerated and could be safely administered without need for monitoring or rescue home medications.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Monoclonal/administration & dosage , Injection Site Reaction/epidemiology , Multiple Myeloma/drug therapy , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/standards , Adult , Antibodies, Monoclonal/adverse effects , Female , Humans , Incidence , Infusions, Intravenous/adverse effects , Infusions, Intravenous/standards , Infusions, Intravenous/statistics & numerical data , Infusions, Intravenous/trends , Injection Site Reaction/etiology , Injections, Subcutaneous/adverse effects , Injections, Subcutaneous/standards , Injections, Subcutaneous/statistics & numerical data , Injections, Subcutaneous/trends , Male , Medical Oncology/standards , Medical Oncology/trends , Middle Aged , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/trends , Retrospective Studies
19.
Am J Clin Dermatol ; 22(4): 581-586, 2021 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33725337

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness and safety of dupilumab in treating elderly patients with atopic dermatitis from baseline to 52 weeks. METHODS: A retrospective observational real-life study was conducted in a group of elderly patients with severe atopic dermatitis treated with dupilumab for 52 weeks. Inclusion criteria were: age ≥ 65 years; diagnosis of atopic dermatitis made by an expert dermatologist; Eczema Area and Severity Index ≥ 24; and a contraindication, side effects, or failure to respond to cyclosporine. The primary outcome was the mean percentage reduction in the Eczema Area and Severity Index score from baseline to week 52. Secondary measures included the mean percentage reduction in the Pruritus and Sleep Numerical Rating Scales and the Dermatology Life Quality Index, and the types and rates of adverse events from baseline to week 52. RESULTS: One hundred and five patients were eligible for the study. Flexural dermatitis was the most frequent clinical phenotype (63.8%). The coexistence of more than one clinical phenotype was found in 70/105 (66.6%) patients. We observed a reduction in all disease severity scores from baseline to week 52 (p < 0.001). Adverse events were recorded in 30/105 (28.6%) patients, with conjunctivitis and injection-site reaction the most frequent. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, dupilumab is an effective and safe treatment for the long-term management of atopic dermatitis in patients aged over 65 years.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/administration & dosage , Conjunctivitis/epidemiology , Dermatitis, Atopic/drug therapy , Injection Site Reaction/epidemiology , Pruritus/drug therapy , Age Factors , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/adverse effects , Conjunctivitis/chemically induced , Dermatitis, Atopic/complications , Dermatitis, Atopic/diagnosis , Dermatitis, Atopic/immunology , Drug Administration Schedule , Female , Humans , Injection Site Reaction/etiology , Injections, Subcutaneous , Male , Pruritus/diagnosis , Pruritus/immunology , Quality of Life , Retrospective Studies , Severity of Illness Index , Time Factors , Treatment Outcome
20.
Diabetes Metab Syndr ; 15(2): 519-524, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33668001

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: There are more than 463 million people living with diabetes with this number expected to increase to 700 million people by 2045. Diabetes is a risk factor for patients developing various comorbidities including, but not limited to, diabetic neuropathy, retinopathy, chronic kidney disease, vascular impediments, and infections. Due to the continuous invasiveness of monitoring and/or treatment of this disease, site for infections are elevated. METHODS: Information was primarily gathered by employing various PubMed scholarly articles for real-world examples in addition to data extraction from supplementary manuscripts. Key search words employed were: diabetes, insulin site infection, lancing infections, insulin pump associated infections, and continuous glucose monitoring infections. RESULTS: Diabetic care devices used for blood glucose monitoring and insulin administration are an integral part of the disease management and/or treatment in various settings including patient homes, assisted living facilities, community centers, and hospitals. These invasive devices leave a diabetic patient with a small open wound which may get infected or aid in blood borne pathogen transmission. Since diabetes itself has a morbidity and mortality burden, it is important to also study complications arising from the management of diabetes. CONCLUSION: Although cases exist of infections, either by pathogen transmission or direct inoculation of the prick site, these are a very small percentage and thus should not undermine the confidence in diabetes management. This review highlights the instances of these infections and where they most often occur.


Subject(s)
Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring/methods , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1/epidemiology , Diabetic Neuropathies/epidemiology , Soft Tissue Infections/epidemiology , Blood Glucose/metabolism , Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring/adverse effects , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1/diagnosis , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1/therapy , Diabetic Neuropathies/diagnosis , Humans , Hypoglycemic Agents/therapeutic use , Injection Site Reaction/diagnosis , Injection Site Reaction/epidemiology , Injection Site Reaction/therapy , Soft Tissue Infections/diagnosis , Soft Tissue Infections/therapy
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL