Explore the vast range of titles available.

Food allergies are common and are associated with substantial morbidity; the only approved treatment is oral immunotherapy for peanut allergy. In this trial, we assessed whether omalizumab, a monoclonal anti-IgE antibody, would be effective and safe as monotherapy in patients with multiple food allergies. Persons 1 to 55 years of age who were allergic to peanuts and at least two other trial-specified foods (cashew, milk, egg, walnut, wheat, and hazelnut) were screened. Inclusion required a reaction to a food challenge of 100 mg or less of peanut protein and 300 mg or less of the two other foods. Participants were randomly assigned, in a 2:1 ratio, to receive omalizumab or placebo administered subcutaneously (with the dose based on weight and IgE levels) every 2 to 4 weeks for 16 to 20 weeks, after which the challenges were repeated. The primary end point was ingestion of peanut protein in a single dose of 600 mg or more without dose-limiting symptoms. The three key secondary end points were the consumption of cashew, of milk, and of egg in single doses of at least 1000 mg each without dose-limiting symptoms. The first 60 participants (59 of whom were children or adolescents) who completed this first stage were enrolled in a 24-week open-label extension. Of the 462 persons who were screened, 180 underwent randomization. The analysis population consisted of the 177 children and adolescents (1 to 17 years of age). A total of 79 of the 118 participants (67%) receiving omalizumab met the primary end-point criteria, as compared with 4 of the 59 participants (7%) receiving placebo (P<0.001). Results for the key secondary end points were consistent with those of the primary end point (cashew, 41% vs. 3%; milk, 66% vs. 10%; egg, 67% vs. 0%; P<0.001 for all comparisons). Safety end points did not differ between the groups, aside from more injection-site reactions in the omalizumab group. In persons as young as 1 year of age with multiple food allergies, omalizumab treatment for 16 weeks was superior to placebo in increasing the reaction threshold for peanut and other common food allergens. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03881696.).

Although omalizumab is currently approved for a limited number of indications—such as asthma, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, and chronic spontaneous urticaria—its potential applications are expanding each year. Owing to its diverse and not yet fully elucidated mechanism of action, including effects on both IgE- and non-IgE-mediated hypersensitivity reactions with delayed onset, this monoclonal antibody may be beneficial in a wide range of allergic and non-allergic conditions. To date, numerous clinical trials and case reports have documented the successful off-label use of omalizumab. It appears particularly promising for patients with difficult-to-treat hypersensitivities, such as food and drug allergies, which continue to pose significant challenges in modern allergology. Even though further research is needed to establish clear indications for its use in these contexts, omalizumab holds considerable potential to enhance the outcomes and clinical efficacy of food immunotherapy and drug desensitization protocols. The aim of this review is to present the current and potential future applications of omalizumab as an adjunctive treatment in food allergy therapy and in desensitization protocols for patients with hypersensitivity to selected drugs.

IntroductionPatient-reported antibiotic allergy labels (AALs) are common. These labels have been demonstrated to have a negative impact on use of appropriate antibiotics and patient-related health outcomes. These patients are more likely to receive suboptimal antibiotics, have increased rates of surgical site infections and are more likely to be colonised with multidrug-resistant organisms. Increasing recognition that antibiotic allergy forms a key part of good antimicrobial stewardship has led to calls for greater access to antibiotic allergy assessment.PREPARE is a pilot randomised controlled trial of beta-lactam allergy assessment and point of care delabelling in perioperative patients utilising a validated antibiotic allergy assessment tool that has been repurposed into a smartphone application. The aim of the study is to assess the feasibility and safety of this approach in the perioperative outpatient setting.Methods and analysisAdult participants requiring elective surgery and are likely to require prophylactic intravenous antibiotics will be recruited. During the intervention phase, participants will be randomised to the intervention or control arm, with control patients receiving usual standard of care. Those randomised to intervention undertake a risk assessment via the smartphone application, with those deemed low risk proceeding to direct oral provocation with either a penicillin or cephalosporin. Study outcomes will be evaluated in the postintervention phase, 30 and 90 days after surgery.Feasibility of intervention delivery and recruitment will be reported as proportions with respective 95% CIs. Participants who experience an antibiotic adverse event will be reported by group with respective 95% CIs and compared using modified Poisson regression model with robust SE estimation.Ethics and disseminationThis protocol has received approval from the Austin Health human research and ethics committee, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia (HREC/17/Austin/575). Results will be disseminated via publication in peer-reviewed journals as well as presentation at international conferences.Trial registration numberACTRN12620001295932.

Antibiotic allergies are commonly reported among patients, but most do not experience reactions on rechallenge with the same agents. These reported allergies complicate management of infections in patients labelled as having penicillin allergy, including serious infections where penicillin-based antibiotics are the first-line (most effective and least toxic) treatment option. Allergy labels are rarely questioned in clinical practice, with many clinicians opting for inferior second-line antibiotics to avoid a perceived risk of allergy. Reported allergies thereby can have significant impacts on patients and public health, and present major ethical challenges. Antibiotic allergy testing has been described as a strategy to circumvent this dilemma, but it carries limitations that often make it less feasible in patients with acute infections or in community settings that lack access to allergy testing. This article provides an empirically informed ethical analysis of key considerations in this clinical dilemma, using Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia in patients with penicillin allergies as a case study. We argue that prescribing first-line penicillin-based antibiotics to patients with reported allergies may often present a more favourable ratio of benefits to risks, and may therefore be more ethically appropriate than using second-line drugs. We recommend changes to policy-making, clinical research and medical education, in order to promote more ethically acceptable responses to antibiotic allergies than the status quo.

The use of acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) is problematic in subjects with histories of hypersensitivity reactions (HRs) to it or with cross-reactive types of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) hypersensitivity. We sought to evaluate the efficacy of low-dose ASA challenge (LDAC) and desensitization to allow ASA therapy at an antiplatelet dose in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) or multiple related risk factors and histories of HRs to ASA or ≥ 2 chemically unrelated NSAIDs. We studied prospectively all patients with such histories and ≥ 3 risk factors for ASCVD (group I), chronic coronary syndrome (CCS, group II), and acute coronary syndrome (ACS) with indication for ASA desensitization (group III). Patients from groups I and II underwent LDACs (cumulative dose of 110 mg), while those from group III were desensitized (cumulative dose of 100.1 mg). We evaluated 103 patients: 62 from group I, 24 from group II, and 17 from group III. Eighty-two of the 86 patients from the first two groups underwent LDACs and 2 reacted. Subsequently, 22 (27.5%) of the 80 patients with negative LDACs were administered dual antiplatelet therapy with ASA after successful percutaneous coronary interventions, thus sparing desensitizations. The remaining 4 patients with CCS and all 17 patients from group III were successfully desensitized. In this pragmatic study, LDAC proved to be a safe and reliable diagnostic tool for identifying patients with histories of HRs to ASA or ≥ 2 different NSAIDs who can tolerate ASA at antiplatelet doses. Routine LDAC is advisable in all patients at high risk for ASCVD or with CCS who report HRs to ASA or ≥ 2 NSAIDs. ASA desensitization remains a safe and effective option in patients with ACS.Study flow-chart.ASCVD atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease; CCS chronic coronary syndrome; ACS acute coronary syndrome; ASA acetylsalicylic acid; DAPT dual antiplatelet therapy; PCI percutaneous coronary intervention; NSAIDs nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; NERD NSAID-exacerbated respiratory disease; NECD NSAID-exacerbated cutaneous disease; NIUAA NSAID-induced urticaria-angioedema or anaphylaxis; SNIUAA single NSAID-induced urticaria-angioedema or anaphylaxis; SNIDHR single NSAID-induced delayed hypersensitivity reaction.

The off-label use of medicines is a common and extensive clinical practice. Omalizumab has been licensed for use in severe allergic asthma and chronic urticaria. Omalizumab dosing was based on body weight and baseline serum IgE concentration. All patients are required to have a baseline IgE between 30 and 700 IU/ml and body weight not more than 150 kg. The use of off-label drugs may lead to several problems including adverse effects and an increased risk/benefit balance. In this article, there are summarized off-label uses of omalizumab in the last recent years in diseases in which IgE maybe or certainly has a corner role such as allergic rhinitis, allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis, anaphylaxis, keratoconjunctivitis, food allergy, drug allergy, urticaria, angioedema, non-atopic asthma, atopic dermatitis, nasal polyps, Churg-Strauss syndrome, eosinophilic otitis media, chronic rhinosinusitis, bullous pemphigoid, contact dermatitis, and others. Use in pregnancy asthmatic women and pre-co-administration with specific immunotherapy will also be revised.

The human intestinal microbiota, establishing a symbiotic relationship with the host, plays a significant role for human health. It is also well known that a disease status is frequently characterized by a dysbiotic condition of the gut microbiota. A probiotic treatment can represent an alternative therapy for enteric disorders and human pathologies not apparently linked to the gastrointestinal tract. Among bifidobacteria, strains of the species Bifidobacterium breve are widely used in paediatrics. B. breve is the dominant species in the gut of breast-fed infants and it has also been isolated from human milk. It has antimicrobial activity against human pathogens, it does not possess transmissible antibiotic resistance traits, it is not cytotoxic and it has immuno-stimulating abilities. This review describes the applications of B. breve strains mainly for the prevention/treatment of paediatric pathologies. The target pathologies range from widespread gut diseases, including diarrhoea and infant colics, to celiac disease, obesity, allergic and neurological disorders. Moreover, B. breve strains are used for the prevention of side infections in preterm newborns and during antibiotic treatments or chemotherapy. With this documentation, we hope to increase knowledge on this species to boost the interest in the emerging discipline known as “therapeutic microbiology”.

To determine the incidence and causes of skin reactions to the synthetic pentasaccharide fondaparinux. Patients who received prophylactic/therapeutic subcutaneous fondaparinux treatment for more than 7 days were prospectively examined for cutaneous adverse effects between September 1, 2008, and April 30, 2009. When indicated, other procedures, such as skin biopsy, allergy testing, and clinical/laboratory assessment for thrombosis and heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, were performed. Overall, 231 patients were enrolled. No patient developed typical delayed type IV hypersensitivity (DTH) erythematous skin lesions. However, one female patient experienced abdominal pruritus at sites of injection. Histology revealed a mild lymphohistiocytic infiltrate, confirming a DTH reaction. Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, as another possible underlying pathomechanism for cutaneous lesions, was ruled out clinically and serologically. Hence, the overall incidence of fondaparinux-induced allergic skin lesions was 0.4% (95% confidence interval, 0.01%-2.4%). No cross-allergies were observed in patients with DTH reaction to heparins. Fondaparinux has a low allergenic potential. The incidence of allergic cutaneous DTH reactions is almost 20 times lower compared to that with commonly used heparins. These results, together with the known low prevalence of secondary thrombotic events or heparin-induced thrombocytopenia during fondaparinux therapy, suggest that in selected patients fondaparinux might substantially improve patient care, therapeutic safety, and cost-effectiveness of anticoagulant therapy. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00510432

IntroductionIodinated contrast media are commonly used in medical imaging and can cause hypersensitivity reactions, including rare but severe life-threatening reactions. Although several prophylactic approaches have been proposed for severe reactions, their effects remain unclear. Therefore, we aim to review systematically the preventive effects of pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic interventions and predictors of acute, hypersensitivity reactions.Methods and analysisWe will search the PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases from 1 January 1990 through 31 December 2019 and will examine the bibliographies of eligible studies, pertinent review articles and clinical practice guidelines. We will include prospective and retrospective studies of any design that evaluated the effects of pharmacological and non-pharmacological preventive interventions for adverse reactions of non-ionic iodinated contrast media. Two assessors will independently extract the characteristics of the study and intervention and the quantitative results. Two independent reviewers will assess the risk of bias using standard design-specific validity assessment tools. The primary outcome will be reduction in acute contrast media-induced hypersensitivity reactions. The secondary outcomes will include characteristics associated with the development of contrast media-induced acute hypersensitivity reactions, and adverse events associated with specific preventive interventions. Unique premedication regimens (eg, dose, drug and duration) and non-pharmacological strategies will be analysed separately. Average-risk and high-risk patients will be considered separately. A meta-analysis will be performed if appropriate.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not applicable, as this will be a secondary analysis of publicly available data. The results of the analysis will be submitted for publication in a peer reviewed journal.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019134003