X-Linked Inhibitor of Apoptosis (XIAP) deficiency presenting as hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis triggered by drug allergy

X-linked inhibitor of apoptosis (XIAP) deficiency is a primary immunodeficiency associated with recurrent hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH) episodes. The clinical phenotypes of XIAP deficiency vary, ranging from splenomegaly to life-threatening inflammation. We report a case of XIAP deficiency with unusual late-onset HLH presentation likely triggered by a drug allergy. A previously healthy adolescent boy presented to the hospital with fever and rash seven days after starting antibiotics for a neck abscess. Laboratory evaluation demonstrated cytopenias, elevated liver enzymes, and increased inflammatory markers. Initially, antibiotics were discontinued due to concern for drug rash. He continued to deteriorate clinically and became hypotensive. Additional testing revealed decreased NK cell function, as well as elevated ferritin, triglycerides, and soluble IL-2 receptor. SLAM-Associated Protein (SAP) and XIAP evaluation by flow cytometry demonstrated decreased XIAP expression. Subsequently, genetic testing revealed a known pathogenic mutation in BIRC4 (c.421_422del), confirming the diagnosis of XIAP deficiency.Copyright © 2023

Safety profile of CoviShield (ChAdOx1nCoV-19) vaccine among healthcare workers in a tertiary care hospital

Background: Coronavirus 2019 was declared as a pandemic by the World Health Organization in March 2020. Bereft of specific treatment for the disease, vaccinations and COVID appropriate behavior have come to be the main approaches to combat the pandemic. A number of vaccines have been approved after clearing clinical trials. Hence, it is essential to evaluate the safety profile of each vaccine for ensuring optimum health of the general population. This study was conducted to evaluate the adverse events following CoviShield vaccination in a tertiary care center. Aims and Objectives: The aim of the study was to describe the pattern of adverse effects, treatment given, and comorbidities seen in healthcare workers (HCW) who reported to the adverse drug reaction (ADR) monitoring center in the department of pharmacology Government T.D. Medical College, Alappuzha, following CoviShield vaccination from January 2021 to October 2021. Material(s) and Method(s): A retrospective and descriptive study was carried out at Department of Pharmacology, GTDMCA involving all HCW who reported side effects following CoviShield vaccination in the ADR monitoring centre (AMC) in the Department of Pharmacology, GTDMCA from January 2021 to Oct 2021. Result(s): Out of 620 HCWs who reported adverse event following vaccination, majority (45%) were from the age group 21-30 years. About 83% of HCWs who reported adverse effect were women. Majority of the respondents (96%) experienced the adverse effects within 24 h. About 88% of respondents experienced these adverse effects after the initial dose alone. Commonly encountered adverse effects were fever (57%), headache (43%), myalgia (38%) etc. Hypertension (7%) was the most common comorbidity seen. Majority of the beneficiaries (70%) took paracetamol for the treatment of the adverse effect. Conclusion(s): Majority of the vaccinated HCWs experienced minor and self-limiting adverse event following immunization (AEFI) with Chimpanzee Adenovirus Oxford novel CoronaVirus-19. No serious AEFI were reported to the AMC. Despite the record speed at which the vaccine has been developed, it has shown to have a good safety profile considering the millions of doses that have been administered.Copyright © 2023 Sai Nathan R, et al.

Virtually supported penicillin allergy de-labelling during COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Penicillin allergy is a commonly listed medication allergy despite rare overall incidence. Many patients erroneously have this label, which has personal, health, and societal costs. Penicillin allergy delabelling requires an oral challenge, which can be a rate limiting step in the de-labeling process; this is even more relevant with the reduction of in-person visits during the COVID-19 pandemic. OBJECTIVE: To identify the utility and broader applicability of using a virtually supported platform, initially adopted given COVID-19 restrictions, to expedite penicillin oral provocation challenge and penicillin de-labeling in patients at low to moderate risk of immediate hypersensitivity reaction and based on shared decision making. METHODS: Patients in Vancouver catchment area were referred for penicillin allergy and virtually assessed by the consulting allergist between July 2020 and April 2021. Those deemed appropriate for oral challenge based on the allergist consultant were offered the option of a virtual oral provocation challenge to oral amoxicillin in a subsequent virtual visit. Patients who agreed and were consented underwent a virtually supervised oral amoxicillin challenge during the second virtual visit. Findings are summarized in this case series. RESULTS: Twenty-three patients, both adult and pediatric, ranging from no to significant co-morbidities were consented and underwent the virtual challenge. One hundred percent of patients were successful with no reaction after an hour post virtual oral provocation challenge with amoxicillin. CONCLUSION: Virtual medicine is likely to remain in the allergist's practice. Virtually supported penicillin allergy delabelling, based on shared decision making and risk stratification, presents another pathway for penicillin allergy delabelling.

Skin Testing and Basophil Activation Testing Is Useful for Assessing Immediate Reactions to Polyethylene Glycol-Containing Vaccines.

BACKGROUND: The mechanism of immediate reactions to drugs or vaccines containing polyethylene glycol (PEG) and PEG derivatives is not fully elucidated. It is considered in many instances to be IgE-mediated. Diagnosis and management of PEG allergy is topical, as BNT162b and mRNA-1273 contain PEG (2[PEG-2000]-N), and ChAdOx1-S and NVX-CoV2373 contain polysorbate 80. mRNA vaccines contain PEG 2000, which encapsulates the mRNA to impair its degradation. This PEG MW is specific to mRNA vaccines and is not used in other drugs and vaccines. PEG 2000 allergy is not well studied, as higher PEG molecular weights are implicated in most of the PEG allergy published in the literature. METHODS: We performed a literature review on PEG allergy and sought to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of our protocol for assessment of PEG 2000 and polysorbate 80 reactions in an outpatient clinic setting. All patients referred to our drug allergy service between 1 July 2021 and 31 December 2021 with suspected immediate allergy to PEG or its derivatives were eligible for the study. Skin testing (ST) and basophil activation testing (BAT) were performed for all patients to multiple PEG molecular weights (MWs). RESULTS: We reviewed twenty patients during the study period. Five patients were allergic. Fifteen patients had a masquerade of allergy and were enrolled as control patients. PEG 2000, polysorbate 80, BNT162b, and ChAdOx1-S had excellent performance characteristics on skin testing. BAT showed high specificity for all vaccines and PEG MWs. DISCUSSION: In our small study, we found ST and BAT to add useful information, particularly for PEG 2000 allergy. Further study of our protocol in larger patient cohorts will provide more information on its performance characteristics and usefulness.

mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine Anaphylaxis: Epidemiology, Risk Factors, and Evaluation.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The COVID-19 vaccines have proved essential in our defense against the COVID-19 pandemic. However, concerns regarding allergic reactions to the vaccines persist to this day. Herein, we review the data regarding the frequency of allergic reactions to the COVID-19 vaccines, the epidemiology, and the management of patients reporting vaccine allergic reactions. RECENT FINDINGS: Although initial reports emphasized a high risk of anaphylaxis to the COVID-19 vaccines, more recent data demonstrate similar rates of anaphylaxis to the COVID-19 vaccines as to other vaccines. Alternative explanations for increased rates of apparent allergic reactions are discussed, including the role for stress-related and nocebo responses. COVID-19 vaccines and mRNA vaccine technology are overwhelmingly safe and well-tolerated by most patients. Careful history and case review will enable the discerning physician to safely vaccinate most patients. Rare patients with objective signs and symptoms of anaphylaxis may be candidates for alternatives to vaccination including monoclonal antibodies.

Allergic Reactions to COVID-19 Vaccination in High-Risk Allergic Patients: The Experience of Trieste University Hospital (North-Eastern Italy).

Background. Allergic patients may develop reactions following COVID-19 vaccination more frequently than non-allergic individuals. The aim of our study was to assess the risk of reactions in high-risk allergic patients vaccinated for COVID-19 at the University Health Agency Giuliano-Isontina (ASUGI) of Trieste (northeastern Italy). Methods. Patients were considered at high risk for allergic reactions in case of: prior anaphylactic reaction to any drug/vaccine; multiple drug allergy; intolerance to polyethylene glycol (PEG) or polysorbate 80 (PS80) containing drugs; and mast cell disorders. High-risk allergic patients were immunized in hospital by a dedicated allergy team supported by resuscitation staff. Patients were interviewed over the phone one month after vaccination to complete a structured questionnaire investigating signs and symptoms developed after immunization. Results. From March 2021 to February 2022, 269 patients with a history of severe allergic reactions were assessed, of whom 208 (77.3%) eventually received COVID-19 vaccination, 50 (18.6%) refused to be immunized, 10 (3.7%) were deferred for medical reasons and one was declared exempted due to testing positive for PS80. Mild reactions (urticaria, angioedema, rhinitis, erythema) to COVID-19 vaccines were reported by 30.3% of patients, 8.7% within 4 h and 21.6% > 4 h after immunization. No anaphylactic events were observed. Although they were 80 times (3.8%) more prevalent than in COVID-19 vaccinees from the general population (0.047%), vaccine allergic reactions in high-risk patients were mainly mild and late, more likely affecting women (OR = 3.05; 95% CI 1.22-7.65). Conclusions. High-risk allergic patients with urticaria and angioedema may experience mild flare-ups of mast cell activation-like symptoms following COVID-19 vaccination, supporting antihistamine premedication before vaccination and to be continued for one week afterwards.

Polythylene glycol severe allergy and SARS-CoV-2 vaccines: usefulness of testing with PEG 1500 extract.

Summary: Background. Polyethylene glycol (PEG) is being used for first time as an excipient for mRNA anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccines containing-PEG2000, highlighting it as a potential cause of anaphylaxis. Objective. To assess the usefulness of skin tests using PEG1500 extract in patients with suspected allergy to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. Methods. We evaluated 126 patients with moderate-high risk of allergy to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines referred to our department from March-December 2021. Skin tests were performed with PEG1500 extract (Roxall), using a stepwise approach, with readings at 30 minutes: prick tests with 0.1%, 1% and 10% concentrations; if negative, intradermal tests with 0.0001%, 0.001% and 0.01% concentrations. The same protocol was applied to 5 healthy controls. Results. Six patients had positive immediate intradermal tests with PEG1500, all with severe PEG allergy: one with a near-fatal anaphylaxis after glucocorticoid injection containing-PEG3350 and five with systemic allergic reactions after mRNA vaccines containing-PEG2000 (Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna). One patient developed anaphylaxis during intradermal test. These six patients were negative to polysorbate 80. The remaining 120 patients had negative tests to PEG1500; seven had positive tests to polysorbate 80. All controls had negative tests. Conclusions. To our knowledge this is the first study describing the allergy work-up testing with PEG1500 commercial extract in the scope of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. The algorithm designed for skin tests revealed to be a useful tool. Severe PEG allergy was diagnosed in 5% of patients, contraindicating PEG-containing vaccines. PEG allergy was excluded in one hundred patients that afterwards took SARS-CoV-2 vaccines containing-PEG2000. Investigation should be conducted in specialized drug allergy centres.

Simplifying the drug provocation test in non-immediate hypersensitivity reactions to amoxicillin in children: The experience of a tertiary care allergy unit.

BACKGROUND: Mild non-immediate reactions (NIR) to beta-lactams (ßLs) are the most common manifestation of adverse drug reactions in children, and the drug provocation test (DPT) remains the gold standard for diagnosis. However, there are still controversies about the protocol that should be used, especially regarding the administration of doses and the DPT length. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate a pediatric population with a history of mild NIR to amoxicillin (AMX) or to amoxicillin-clavulanic acid (AMX/CL) who underwent a diagnostic workup including a DPT with the culprit drug, to understand if a graded DPT or, instead, a single full dose could be the most appropriate way of administration in clinical practice. METHODS: The data of children were retrospectively analyzed for a 5-year period, with demographic and clinical characteristics collected. We reported the allergy workup and the results of the DPT performed with the administration of incremental doses and a prolonged DPT at home for a total of 5 days. RESULTS: Three hundred fifty-four patients were included. Overall, 23/354 (6.5%) DPTs were positive: 11/23 patients showed a reaction after 2-8 h after the last dose on the 1st or 2nd day (1 reacted 30 min after the last dose), 1/23 reacted with urticaria 30 min after the first dose, 11/23 reacted at home on the 5th day of the DPT. CONCLUSION: This paper indirectly suggests that a single therapeutic dose administered on the 1st day of a DPT could be safe in the diagnostic workup of mild NIR to AMX/CL. Moreover, this could be less time-consuming as patients would spend less time in the hospital, also considering the public health restrictions imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Telemedicine in Drug Hypersensitivity.

This review focuses on the current applications of telemedicine for drug hypersensitivity reactions. Telemedicine holds promise as a tool to risk-stratify patients with drug hypersensitivity, for both evaluation of penicillin allergies and severe cutaneous adverse reactions. Although telemedicine may not fully replace in-person assessment owing to the need for testing, challenges, and in-person physical examination or skin biopsy, it may allow for risk stratification whereby some in-person visits may not be necessary. Electronic consults have also emerged along with telemedicine as a tool for drug allergy evaluations.

The Polysorbate containing AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine is tolerated by polyethylene glycol (PEG) allergic patients.

BACKGROUND: Polyethylene glycol (PEG) is the excipient found in the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. We previously demonstrated PEG allergy was a cause of severe anaphylaxis to the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. PEG is widely used in many household products, cosmetics and medicines. However PEG allergy is rare, there have been few confirmed cases of PEG allergy. The excipient of potential concern in the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine is polysorbate 80 (PS80). Cross-reactivity between PEG and polysorbate has been suggested, based on their composition and skin-test data. The aim of this study was to determine whether PEG-allergic patients could be vaccinated with the PS80 containing AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine. METHOD: Eight patients with PEG allergy were identified by the allergy clinic at Cambridge University Hospital. Patients underwent skin prick testing to PS80 (20%) and to the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine prior to vaccination. RESULTS: All eight patients allergic to PEG tolerated the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine, even in 2 patients where the PS80 skin prick test was positive and 1 with a positive skin prick test to the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine. CONCLUSION: Patients allergic to PEG, previously denied COVID vaccination, may now be safely vaccinated with the PS80 containing AstraZeneca vaccine and need only avoid the PEG-containing mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. This opens up the possibility that these patients will also tolerate other vaccines containing PS80 such as the Janssen/Johnson and Johnson COVID-19 vaccine. Clinical cross-reactivity between PEG and PS80 did not occur in this vaccine setting.

CoronaVac COVID-19 Vaccine-Induced Anaphylaxis: Clinical Characteristics and Revaccination Outcomes.

Anaphylaxis to CoronaVac, an inactivated vaccine against COVID-19, is extremely rare. We report 12 cases of anaphylaxis after CoronaVac administration, focusing on clinical characteristics and management outcomes. Skin test and graded vaccine challenge were successfully performed in our cases and might be considered if an inactivated vaccine is the only remaining option.

Efficacy of a rational algorithm to assess allergy risk in patients receiving the BNT162b2 vaccine.

Among 6146 hospital employees, 118 subjects with severe allergic background were identified through a screening questionnaire and stratified into 3 groups (Low-risk (LR), Intermediate (IR) and High-risk (HR) group), based on their allergic anamnesis. Data reports on hypersensitivity reactions (HypR) have been collected in both allergic and non-allergic subjects. Seventeen patients (14%) in the allergic population had a HypR after the first, the second or both doses. Skin manifestations were the most frequent ones. Allergic events were more frequent in HR (35%) than IR (10%; p = 0.005) or LR (0%; p = 0.074) subjects. No patient had anaphylaxis. All patients completed the vaccination schedule. 13 HypR occurred in patients without severe allergic background (13/6028, 0,2%) including one (1/6148, 0.016% of total population) WAO grade-4 anaphylaxis. Our data suggest that BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 vaccine is relatively safe also in patients with severe allergic background; however, some precautions are required for high-risk patients.

Penicillin Allergy Label Increases Risk of Worse Clinical Outcomes in COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) ranges from asymptomatic to severe. Several comorbidities are associated with worse clinical outcomes. Antibiotic use is common in COVID-19 and penicillin (PCN) allergy can affect antibiotic choice and may influence COVID-19 outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of PCN allergy label on COVID-19 outcomes. METHODS: For this retrospective, cohort study, a Web-based tool for population cohort research, TriNetX, was used to identify adult COVID-19 patients with and without PCN allergy label. The two cohorts were matched using 1:1 propensity score matching for baseline demographics and conditions associated with risk for severe COVID-19. The 30-day risks for hospitalization, acute respiratory failure, intensive care unit requirement, mechanical ventilation requirement, and mortality were then compared between groups. Because bacterial infection can drive alternative antibiotic regimens, additional analyses focused on patients without bacterial infection. RESULTS: After propensity score matching, each cohort consisted of 13,183 patients. COVID-19 patients with PCN allergy had higher risks for hospitalization (risk ratio [RR] = 1.46; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.41-1.52) acute respiratory failure (RR = 1.25; 95% CI, 1.19-1.31), intensive care unit requirement (RR = 1.20; 95% CI, 1.08-1.34), and mechanical ventilation (RR = 1.17; 95% CI 1.03-1.32) compared with patients without PCN allergy; however, there was no mortality difference (RR = 1.09; 95% CI, 0.96-1.23). Although the bacterial infection risk was higher in PCN allergic COVID-19 patients, exclusion of patients with bacterial infections yielded similar results. CONCLUSIONS: Penicillin allergic patients have higher risk for worse COVID-19 outcomes and should be considered for risk mitigation strategies.

First-Dose mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine Allergic Reactions: Limited Role for Excipient Skin Testing.

BACKGROUND: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention state that a severe or immediate allergic reaction to the first dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine is a contraindication for the second dose. OBJECTIVE: To assess outcomes associated with excipient skin testing after a reported allergic reaction to the first dose of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. METHODS: We identified a consecutive sample of patients with reported allergic reactions after the first dose of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine who underwent allergy assessment with skin testing to polyethylene glycol (PEG) and, when appropriate, polysorbate 80. Skin testing results in conjunction with clinical phenotyping of the first-dose mRNA COVID-19 vaccine reaction guided second-dose vaccination recommendation. Second-dose mRNA COVID-19 vaccine reactions were assessed. RESULTS: Eighty patients with reported first-dose mRNA COVID-19 vaccine allergic reactions (n = 65; 81% immediate onset) underwent excipient skin testing. Of those, 14 (18%) had positive skin tests to PEG (n = 5) and/or polysorbate 80 (n = 12). Skin testing result did not affect tolerance of the second dose in patients with immediate or delayed reactions. Of the 70 patients who received the second mRNA COVID-19 vaccine dose (88%), 62 had either no reaction or a mild reaction managed with antihistamines (89%), but 2 patients required epinephrine treatment. Three patients with positive PEG-3350 intradermal (methylprednisolone) testing tolerated second-dose mRNA COVID-19 vaccination. Refresh Tears caused nonspecific skin irritation. CONCLUSIONS: Most individuals with a reported allergic reaction to the first dose of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, regardless of skin test result, received the second dose safely. More data are needed on the value of skin prick testing to PEG (MiraLAX) in evaluating patients with mRNA COVID-19 vaccine anaphylaxis. Refresh Tears should not be used for skin testing.

Optimizing investigation of suspected allergy to polyethylene glycols.

BACKGROUND: Polyethylene glycols (PEGs) are polymers of varying molecular weight (MW) used widely as excipients in drugs and other products, including the mRNA vaccines against coronavirus disease 2019. Allergy to PEGs is rare. Skin testing and graded challenge carries a high risk of inducing systemic reactions. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated skin prick test (SPT) results and in vitro reactivity over time to different MW PEGs and assessed cross-sensitization patterns in PEG allergy. METHODS: Ten patients with previously diagnosed PEG allergy underwent SPT twice with PEGs 26 months apart. Lower MW (PEG 300, 3000, 6000) were tested, followed by PEG 20,000, in stepwise, increasing concentrations. Cross-sensitization to polysorbate 80 and poloxamer 407 was assessed. SPT was performed in 16 healthy controls. In vitro basophil histamine release (HR) test and passive sensitization HR test were performed in patients and controls. RESULTS: Patients previously testing positive on SPT to PEG 3000 and/or 6000 also tested positive to PEG 20,000. Patients with a longer interval since diagnosis tested negative to lower MW PEGs and positive mainly to higher concentrations of PEG 20,000. Three patients developed systemic urticaria during SPT. Eight patients showed cross-sensitization to poloxamer 407 and 3 to polysorbate 80. All controls tested negative. In vitro tests showed limited usefulness. CONCLUSIONS: Skin test reactivity to PEG can decrease over time, but titrated SPT with increasing concentrations of PEG 20,000 can be diagnostic when lower MW PEGs test negative. To avoid systemic reactions, stepwise SPT is mandatory.

Health disparities in allergic and immunologic conditions in racial and ethnic underserved populations: A Work Group Report of the AAAAI Committee on the Underserved.

Health disparities are health differences linked with economic, social, and environmental disadvantage. They adversely affect groups that have systematically experienced greater social or economic obstacles to health. Renewed efforts are needed to reduced health disparities in the United States, highlighted by the disparate impact on racial minorities during the coronavirus pandemic. Institutional or systemic patterns of racism are promoted and legitimated through accepted societal standards, and organizational processes within the field of medicine, and contribute to health disparities. Herein, we review current evidence regarding health disparities in allergic rhinitis, asthma, atopic dermatitis, food allergy, drug allergy, and primary immune deficiency disease in racial and ethnic underserved populations. Best practices to address these disparities involve addressing social determinants of health and adopting policies to improve access to specialty care and treatment for the underserved through telemedicine and community partnerships, cross-cultural provider training to reduce implicit bias, inclusion of underserved patients in research, implementation of culturally competent patient education, and recruitment and training of health care providers from underserved communities. Addressing health disparities requires a multilevel approach involving patients, health providers, local agencies, professional societies, and national governmental agencies.

Management of Allergic Diseases During COVID-19 Outbreak.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has challenged healthcare system capacities and safety for health care workers, reshaping doctor-patient interaction favoring e-Health or telemedicine. The pandemic situation may make difficult to prioritize patients with allergies diseases (AD), face-to-face evaluation, and moreover concern about the possible COVID-19 diagnosis, since COVID-19 shared many symptoms in common with AD. Being COVID-19 a novel disease, everyone is susceptible; there are some advances on vaccine and specific treatment. We evaluate existing literature on allergic diseases (AD): allergic rhinitis, asthma, food allergy, drug allergy, and skin allergy, and potential underlying mechanisms for any interrelationship between AD and COVID-19. RECENT FINDINGS: There is inconclusive and controversial evidence of the association between AD and the risk of adverse clinical outcomes of COVID-19. AD patients should minimize hospital and face-to-face visits, and those who have used biologics and allergen immunotherapy should continue the treatment. It is essential to wear personal protective equipment for the protection of health care workers. Social distancing, rational use of facemasks, eye protection, and hand disinfection for health care workers and patients deserve further attention and promotion. Teleconsultation during COVID-19 times for AD patients is very encouraging and telemedicine platform can provide a reliable service in patient care.