Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 8 de 8
Filtrar
1.
J Allergy Clin Immunol ; 149(5): 1525-1560, 2022 05.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35176351

RESUMO

Secondary hypogammaglobulinemia (SHG) is characterized by reduced immunoglobulin levels due to acquired causes of decreased antibody production or increased antibody loss. Clarification regarding whether the hypogammaglobulinemia is secondary or primary is important because this has implications for evaluation and management. Prior receipt of immunosuppressive medications and/or presence of conditions associated with SHG development, including protein loss syndromes, are histories that raise suspicion for SHG. In patients with these histories, a thorough investigation of potential etiologies of SHG reviewed in this report is needed to devise an effective treatment plan focused on removal of iatrogenic causes (eg, discontinuation of an offending drug) or treatment of the underlying condition (eg, management of nephrotic syndrome). When iatrogenic causes cannot be removed or underlying conditions cannot be reversed, therapeutic options are not clearly delineated but include heightened monitoring for clinical infections, supportive antimicrobials, and in some cases, immunoglobulin replacement therapy. This report serves to summarize the existing literature regarding immunosuppressive medications and populations (autoimmune, neurologic, hematologic/oncologic, pulmonary, posttransplant, protein-losing) associated with SHG and highlights key areas for future investigation.


Assuntos
Agamaglobulinemia , Imunodeficiência de Variável Comum , Síndromes de Imunodeficiência , Agamaglobulinemia/diagnóstico , Agamaglobulinemia/etiologia , Agamaglobulinemia/terapia , Imunodeficiência de Variável Comum/complicações , Humanos , Doença Iatrogênica , Imunidade , Imunoglobulinas , Síndromes de Imunodeficiência/complicações , Síndromes de Imunodeficiência/diagnóstico , Síndromes de Imunodeficiência/terapia
2.
Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol ; 129(1): 88-94.e1, 2022 07.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35288274

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Polyethylene glycol (PEG) and polysorbate reactions were initially implicated as a likely risk factor for reacting to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines and remain a source of vaccine hesitancy despite increasing evidence that they do not pose an increased risk for COVID-19 vaccine reactions. OBJECTIVE: To investigate COVID-19 vaccine safety outcomes in patients with reported reactions to PEG- and polysorbate-containing medications and vaccines. METHODS: COVID-19 vaccine safety was reviewed in patients with PEG or polysorbate reactions documented in their electronic medical records at a tertiary academic medical center (cohort 1) and patients referred to Allergy and Immunology with reported PEG or polysorbate reactions (cohort 2). COVID-19 vaccine safety was also reviewed following reported symptoms (onset ≤ 12 hours) to first-dose PEG-containing messenger RNA (mRNA) COVID-19 vaccine (cohort 3). RESULTS: Of 252 patients in cohort 1 (n = 202) and cohort 2 (n = 50), 236 (94%) received mRNA COVID-19 vaccines (106 Pfizer, 130 Moderna); 235 received both doses. Only 3 patients from cohort 2 developed mild rash following vaccination. None of the 44 patients in cohort 3 with acute symptoms following first-dose mRNA COVID-19 vaccine (27 Pfizer, 17 Moderna) had previously reported PEG or polysorbate reactions. Of these 44 patients, 43 received the second dose and all 3 who developed symptoms following the second dose (1 required epinephrine) had negative PEG skin testing. CONCLUSION: Patients with reported reactions to PEG and polysorbate safely received COVID-19 vaccines. PEG and polysorbate skin testing did not identify patients at risk for first dose or recurrent reactions to COVID-19 vaccines. Screening for PEG and polysorbate allergy may only increase vaccine hesitancy without identifying patients at risk for COVID-19 vaccine reactions.


Assuntos
COVID-19 , Hipersensibilidade , Vacinas , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , Vacinas contra COVID-19/efeitos adversos , Humanos , Polietilenoglicóis/efeitos adversos , Polissorbatos/efeitos adversos , RNA Mensageiro , Vacinas/efeitos adversos
6.
Clin Rev Allergy Immunol ; 62(3): 432-448, 2022 Jun.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34338975

RESUMO

Hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) to chemotherapy agents can present a serious challenge to treating patients with preferred or first-line therapies. Allergic reactions through an immunologic mechanism have been established for platinum and taxane agents, which are used to treat a wide variety of cancers including gynecologic cancers. Platin HSRs typically occur after multiple cycles of chemotherapy, reflecting the development of drug IgE sensitization, while taxane HSRs often occur on first or second exposure. Despite observed differences between platin and taxane HSRs, drug desensitization has been an effective method to reintroduce both chemotherapeutic agents safely. Skin testing is the primary diagnostic tool used to risk-stratify patients after initial HSRs, with more widespread use for platinum agents than taxanes. Different practices exist around the use of skin testing, drug challenge, and choice of desensitization protocol. Here, we review the epidemiology, mechanism, and clinical presentation of HSRs to platinum and taxane agents, as well as key controversies in their evaluation and management.


Assuntos
Antineoplásicos , Hipersensibilidade a Drogas , Neoplasias , Antineoplásicos/efeitos adversos , Dessensibilização Imunológica/métodos , Hipersensibilidade a Drogas/diagnóstico , Hipersensibilidade a Drogas/epidemiologia , Hipersensibilidade a Drogas/etiologia , Feminino , Humanos , Neoplasias/tratamento farmacológico , Platina/efeitos adversos , Testes Cutâneos , Taxoides/efeitos adversos
7.
J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract ; 9(7): 2672-2679.e2, 2021 Jul.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33894393

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) necessitated wide-scale adoption of telemedicine (TM) and restriction of in-person care. The impacts on allergy/immunology (A/I) care delivery are still being studied. OBJECTIVE: To describe the outcomes of rapid transition to TM-based care (video visit followed by in-person visits dedicated to diagnostic and therapeutic procedures when needed) at an academic A/I practice during COVID-19. METHODS: Demographic data were compared for patients originally scheduled for in-person visits between March 10, 2020, and April 30, 2020, who completed a video visit instead between March 10, 2020, and June 30, 2020, and those who did not. Appointment completion, diagnoses, and drug allergy and skin testing completion were compared for visits between March 10, 2020, and June 30, 2020, and 1 year prior (March 10, 2019-June 30, 2019). RESULTS: Sixty-nine percent (265 of 382) of patients originally scheduled between March 10, 2020, and April 30, 2020, were able to complete video visits. Patients who completed video visits were more likely to be white (52% vs 33%; P < .001), English-speaking (96% vs 89%; P = .01), and privately insured (70% vs 54%; P = .004). With TM-based care compared with in-person care, there were significant decreases in environmental and food skin testing completion rates (91% and 92% in 2019 vs 60% and 64% in 2020, respectively, P < .001). Drug allergy testing completed after internal referral remained low but comparable (51% in 2019 vs 52% in 2020). Transitioning nonprocedural visits to video allowed allergen immunotherapy and biologic injection visits to resume at a volume similar to pre-COVID. No COVID-19 infections resulted from in-clinic exposure. CONCLUSIONS: Although transitioning to TM-based care allowed continued A/I care delivery, strategies are needed to achieve higher testing completion rates and ensure video visits do not exacerbate existing health disparities.


Assuntos
COVID-19 , Hipersensibilidade , Telemedicina , Instituições de Assistência Ambulatorial , Humanos , SARS-CoV-2
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA