Preparing Patients for Oral Immunotherapy (PPOINT): International Delphi consensus for procedural preparation and consent.

BACKGROUND: Despite the promise of oral immunotherapy (OIT) to treat food allergies, this procedure is associated with potential risk. There is no current agreement about what elements should be included in the preparatory or consent process. OBJECTIVE: We developed consensus recommendations about the OIT process considerations and patient-specific factors that should be addressed before initiating OIT and developed a consensus OIT consent process and information form. METHODS: We convened a 36-member Preparing Patients for Oral Immunotherapy (PPOINT) panel of allergy experts to develop a consensus OIT patient preparation, informed consent process, and framework form. Consensus for themes and statements was reached using Delphi methodology, and the consent information form was developed. RESULTS: The expert panel reached consensus for 4 themes and 103 statements specific to OIT preparatory procedures, of which 76 statements reached consensus for inclusion specific to the following themes: general considerations for counseling patients about OIT; patient- and family-specific factors that should be addressed before initiating OIT and during OIT; indications for initiating OIT; and potential contraindications and precautions for OIT. The panel reached consensus on 9 OIT consent form themes: benefits, risks, outcomes, alternatives, risk mitigation, difficulties/challenges, discontinuation, office policies, and long-term management. From these themes, 219 statements were proposed, of which 189 reached consensus, and 71 were included on the consent information form. CONCLUSION: We developed consensus recommendations to prepare and counsel patients for safe and effective OIT in clinical practice with evidence-based risk mitigation. Adoption of these recommendations may help standardize clinical care and improve patient outcomes and quality of life.

An expert panel's review on patients with hereditary angioedema switching from attenuated androgens to oral prophylactic therapy.

Background: Hereditary angioedema (HAE) is a rare condition marked by swelling episodes in various body parts, including the extremities, upper airway, face, intestinal tract, and genitals. Long-term prophylaxis (LTP), prescribed to control recurring HAE attacks, is integral to its management. Previously, attenuated androgens (AAs) were the only oral LTP options. However, in 2020, berotralstat, an oral plasma kallikrein inhibitor, was approved in the United States. A 2018 survey of adults with HAE type I or type II showed that almost all the patients who used prophylactic HAE medication preferred oral treatment (98%) and felt that it fit their lifestyle better than injectable treatment (96%). Still, guidelines lack consensus on transitioning patients from AAs to alternative oral prophylactic therapy. Objective: This paper aims to share expert insights and patient feedback on transitioning from AAs to berotralstat, an alternative oral prophylactic therapy, from the perspective of clinicians with extensive experience in treating patients with HAE. Methods: A panel of five HAE specialists convened for a virtual half-day roundtable discussion in April 2023. Results: Discussions about transitioning from AAs to berotralstat were prompted by routine consultations, patient inquiries based on independent research, ineffective current treatment, or worsening AA-related adverse effects. For patients who switched from AAs, the physicians reported that the decision was influenced by the alternative therapy's ability to prevent HAE attacks, its safety, and the once-daily administration schedule. All expert panel members identified fewer AA-related adverse effects; better quality of life; and less severe, shorter, and less frequent HAE attacks as clinical or patient goals they hoped to achieve through the treatment switch. Conclusion: The emergence of new, highly specific LTP drugs for HAE calls for the development of comprehensive recommendations and guidelines for transitioning from AAs to alternative oral prophylactic therapy. The expert panel highlighted key factors to consider during the development of such guidelines.

Age-Related Food Aversion and Anxiety Represent Primary Patient Barriers to Food Oral Immunotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Although oral immunotherapy (OIT) for food allergy is a reasonable treatment option, barriers to this procedure's implementation have not been extensively evaluated from a patient perspective. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the barriers patients face during OIT administration, including anxiety and taste aversion, and the role of health care professionals, especially dietitians. METHODS: A survey in Canada and the United States involved families currently enrolled in food OIT programs. RESULTS: Of responses from 379 participants, fear of reaction was the most common barrier to OIT initiation, with 45.6% reporting it being a "very significant" barrier with other fears reported. However, taste aversion represented the prominent obstacle to continuation. Taste aversion was associated with a slower buildup (P = .02) and a reduction in dose (P = .002). Taste aversion was a strongly age-dependent barrier for initiation (P < .001) and continuation (P < .002), with older children over 6 years of age reporting it as a very significant barrier (P < .001). Boredom was reported as a concern for specific allergens such as peanut, egg, sesame, and hazelnuts (P < .05), emphasizing the need for diverse food options. Notably, 59.9% of respondents mixed OIT foods with sweet items. Despite these dietary concerns, dietitians were underutilized, with only 9.5% of respondents having seen a dietitian and the majority finding dietitian support helpful with greater certainty about the exact dose (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Taste aversion and anxiety represent primary patient-related barriers to OIT. Taste aversion was highly age dependent, with older patients being more affected. Dietitians and psychology support were underutilized, representing a critical target to improve adherence and OIT success.

Practical aspects of oral immunotherapy: The importance of optimal office design and workflow.

Oral immunotherapy (OIT) is an emerging treatment, but it is more than products and protocols. Office setup, including spacing, staffing, and logistics, is critical to assess to fully implement OIT into clinical practice. To provide insights into what needs to be considered in setting up an office to practically implement OIT into clinical practice. Most of the clinical research about OIT focuses on the products and protocols used for OIT. However, to safely and effectively integrate this into clinical practice, there are many practical aspects that need to be considered. Proper staffing, office space, scheduling, and on-call responsibilities all need to be considered because OIT will impact all of these aspects of practice. We provide suggestions and considerations as you think through these vital logistics in your office. These are practical considerations that must be determined to effectively handle OIT in an office setting. OIT products and protocols are one aspect of OIT. Actually delivering the treatment with staff, office space, and handling the patient needs after hours is really when OIT becomes more of a reality for the physician and the patient.

Clinical profile and treatment outcomes in patients with hereditary angioedema with normal C1 esterase inhibitor.

BACKGROUND: Hereditary angioedema (HAE) is often caused by low serum levels or functional deficiency in C1 inhibitor (C1-INH); however, in some cases, C1-INH serum level and function are measured as normal (HAE-nl-C1INH). Management of HAE-nl-C1INH is similar to management of HAE with C1-INH deficiency, including on-demand therapy for angioedema attacks and, potentially, prophylaxis. Recombinant human C1 esterase inhibitor (rhC1-INH) is indicated for treatment of acute HAE attacks. This study assessed the clinical profile and treatment outcomes in an HAE-nl-C1INH population with a history of rhC1-INH treatment. METHODS: Medical records containing patient-reported outcomes from ten US treatment centers were analyzed retrospectively for medical history, angioedema attack characteristics, attack treatments, and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Twenty-three patients were included, with wide US geographic representation. Most patients (87.0%) were female; median age was 36.0 years (range, 19-67 years). Of 20 patients with available data, 4 had their first angioedema attack during childhood (aged <12 years), 3 during adolescence (aged 12-17 years), and 13 during adulthood (aged 18-29 years, n = 7; aged ≥30 years, n = 6). Median age at HAE-nl-C1INH diagnosis was 31.5 years (range, 9-59 years). Previous failed treatments included high-dose antihistamines (n = 20) and corticosteroids (n = 20). Use of US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved HAE therapy positively impacted patient-reported assessments of angioedema attacks. Most patients were taking rhC1-INH or lanadelumab as prophylaxis and icatibant or rhC1-INH for acute management. Most patients reported improved disease control with these therapies, including reductions in angioedema attack frequency and severity. Although most patients were receiving prophylactic therapy, availability of treatment for breakthrough attacks was important. CONCLUSION: Findings from this retrospective study support use of FDA-approved HAE medications for prophylaxis and acute treatment of HAE attacks in patients with HAE-nl-C1INH. Individualized HAE treatment regimens were needed to optimize therapeutic outcomes.

Early diagnosis is key in vancomycin-induced linear IgA bullous dermatosis and Stevens-Johnson syndrome.

BACKGROUND: With the emergence of highly resistant beta-lactam gram-positive organisms, vancomycin hydrochloride usage has increased considerably. Consequently, adverse drug reactions, including unfavorable cutaneous events, have also increased. Important adverse skin reactions are linear IgA bullous dermatosis (LABD) and Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS). These blistering disorders can have clinical manifestations that are difficult to distinguish; however, it is important to make the distinction because treatment and prognosis are different. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to review the literature on LABD and SJS and compare important differentiating characteristics to assist physicians in making the correct diagnosis. METHODS: The authors used MEDLINE to search for all published studies on vancomycin adverse events, and combined LABD, SJS, exanthema, and skin rashes each separately with vancomycin adverse events. Furthermore, the authors searched PubMed for all meta-analyses and randomized controlled clinical trials relating to treatment of patients with SJS. RESULTS: Clinically, LABD and SJS both present similarly with bullae. Diagnosis is made by use of perilesional skin biopsy and direct immunofluorescence. Direct immunofluorescence shows linear IgA deposition along the basement membrane zone in LABD, whereas this is absent in SJS. The treatment for both vancomycin-induced SJS and vancomycin-induced LABD is prompt discontinuation of the drug. However, if SJS is diagnosed early, systemic corticosteroids appear to decrease morbidity. CONCLUSIONS: In cases of SJS or LABD that are difficult to distinguish clinically, the authors recommend performing a skin biopsy and direct immunofluorescence early to confirm the diagnosis so that effective treatment can be instituted.

Time-dependent inhibition of histamine-induced cutaneous responses by oral and intramuscular diphenhydramine and oral fexofenadine.

BACKGROUND: Diphenhydramine is often the treatment of choice for acute urticarial or allergic reactions despite its adverse effects of sedation and impairment. Second- and third-generation histamine1-antihistamines are generally devoid of these adverse effects but are typically not used because of a perceived slower onset of action. OBJECTIVE: To examine the time-dependent effects of oral fexofenadine and oral and intramuscular diphenhydramine to reduce histamine-induced wheal-and-flare responses. METHODS: Eighteen healthy patients were included in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, 3-way, randomized, crossover study with oral fexofenadine (180 mg) and oral and intramuscular diphenhydramine (50 mg). Histamine-induced skin tests were performed before and more than 6 hours subsequent to dosing. The primary end point was time to induce a 50% reduction in histamine-induced flare. Secondary end points included change from baseline at each time point in wheal-and-flare responses and area under the curve at more than 6 hours for flare. RESULTS: No significant differences were found in the 50% inhibitory responses of histamine-induced flares among the 3 groups (P = .09). No significant differences were found among the 3 groups in change from baseline at each time point except for 30 minutes during which fexofenadine had no inhibitory effect. Area under the curve analyses for wheal-and-flare responses revealed no differences among treatments at more than 6 hours. CONCLUSION: Diphenhydramine tended to work more rapidly than fexofenadine, but the differences were not statistically significant. Given the adverse effect profile of diphenhydramine, but only marginal onset of action advantage, the risk-to-benefit ratio may be more favorable for oral fexofenadine when treating an acute urticarial or allergic reaction.

Analysis of two translocation breakpoints and identification of a negative regulatory element in patients with Rieger's syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Rieger's syndrome is an autosomal dominant disorder characterized by eye, tooth, and umbilical anomalies. A gene responsible for Rieger's syndrome, PITX2, has previously been cloned using two patients with balanced translocations, t(4;16) and t(4;11), with breakpoints that lie near the gene, but which do not interrupt it. METHODS: We sequenced both breakpoint regions on chromosome 4 and screened this area for novel genes. Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) was used to determine if PITX2 was still present on the 4:16 chromosome. Both the chromosome 16 and chromosome 11 breakpoints were cloned and sequenced using panhandle polymerase chain reaction (PHPCR). Transient transfection studies were performed to compare effects on a reporter gene between native chromosome 4 sequence and chromosome 11 sequence. RESULTS: The region surrounding PITX2 on chromosome 4 is rich in repetitive elements, but no novel genes were identified. FISH demonstrated that PITX2 was intact on the 4:16 translocation chromosome. The PHPCR experiments demonstrated that the translocated regions of chromosomes 16 and 11 were repeat-rich, and transfection studies revealed a slight enhancer effect with the chromosome 4 sequence, and a strong silencer effect when the chromosome 11 sequence was present. CONCLUSIONS: Given the lack of any novel genes near either breakpoint, changes in potential regulatory elements may be the best model to explain the loss of PITX2 expression in these patients and hence the Rieger's syndrome phenotype.