Twenty-First Century Global ADR Management: A Need for Clarification, Redesign, and Coordinated Action

Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are estimated to be between the fourth and sixth most common cause of death worldwide, taking their place among other prevalent causes of mortality such as heart disease, cancer, and stroke. ADRs impact a broad range of populations across a wide variety of global geography and demographics, with significant mortality and morbidity burden in vulnerable groups such as older people, pediatric populations, and individuals in low-income settings. Too large a share of medicines risk management remains limited to signal detection in big ADR databases (USFDA, EMA, WHO, etc.) This resource allocation is antiquated and applied statistical signal detection methodologies have reached their limits of usefulness. In addition, existing databases are designed for short-term reactions, closely related to medication use and, thus, can only partially assess important broader consequences across geography, time, and clinical relevance. There is an urgent need change the dynamic. We need to identify (earlier and more regularly) many of the important but often overlooked or missed ADRs. Rather than assigning blame, we need to identify the root causes of the problem so they can be clearly addressed and fixed. The public health implications are profound—particularly as we recognize the importance of predicting and mitigating the next pandemic. Consequently, medicines risk management must be integrated within a broader global public health vision. To accomplish this, we need to develop the new tools and methodologies critical to assessing these public health imperatives. © 2022, The Author(s), under exclusive licence to The Drug Information Association, Inc.

Intramuscular injection of a mixture of COVID-19 peptide vaccine and tetanus vaccine in horse induced neutralizing antibodies against authentic virus of SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant

Peptide vaccine is not effective due to its low immunogenicity. To improve the efficacy of peptide vaccine against COVID-19, a novel method was developed by mixing a COVID-19 peptide vaccine with a tetanus vaccine. In this study, intramuscular injection of a mixture of COVID-19 peptide vaccine and tetanus vaccine twice, i.e., first dose on day 0 and second dose on day 21, induced neutralizing antibodies against authentic virus of SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant in a horse. Horse serum of day 35, i.e., two weeks after the second dose, neutralized authentic virus of SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant, equal to half effectiveness of human serum from vaccinees of Moderna COVID-19 vaccine. However, neither horse serum nor human serum neutralized Omicron variant authentic virus. No side effects were observed after each dose. This study indicates intramuscular injection of a mixture of COVID-19 peptide vaccine and tetanus vaccine may work in humans to improve peptide vaccine efficacy against SARS-CoV-2.

Utilizing Biologics in Drug Desensitization

Purpose of Review: The purpose of this literature review was to review the latest advancements with biologics in rapid drug desensitization. Our methodology was to highlight both desensitization to biologics themselves and the use of biologics in desensitization to both biologic and nonbiologic drugs. Recent Findings: Biologics are a vast category of drugs that include monoclonal antibodies, nanobodies, modern vaccinations, and even hormones. Desensitization to biologics can be safely performed through standardized procedure. Biomarkers are used both in vitro and in vivo to help identify and classify hypersensitivity reactions. Hypersensitivity reactions to the mRNA vaccinations against SARS-CoV-2 present their own unique challenges to management. There are specific excipients in monoclonal antibodies that are thought to be responsible for many of their hypersensitivity reactions. Certain biologics can even be used to assist in desensitization to other drugs. Summary: Rapid drug desensitization is a standardized procedure that may be able to help many patients who have experienced hypersensitivity reactions to biologics and would best be treated with them to continue to receive them. Biologic drugs have opened a new era in medicine for the prevention and treatment of infectious diseases, cancer, and inflammatory diseases. Hypersensitivity reactions to biologics are quite common. This literature review presents the latest advancements in our understanding of hypersensitivity reactions to biologics, how rapid drug desensitization can be used to continue therapy despite history of hypersensitivity, and how biologics themselves can be used to aid in desensitization itself. © 2022, The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.

Safety of and antibody response to the BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine in adolescents and young adults with underlying disease

Background: Data are limited regarding the safety of and antibody response to the BNT162b2 severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) messenger ribonucleic acid vaccine in adolescents and young adults with underlying disease. Methods: This prospective observational study enrolled patients age 12–25 years with chronic underlying disease who received 2 doses of BNT162b2. A 18-item questionnaire was used to assess adverse events within 7 days post-vaccination, and data regarding severe adverse events were collected from electronic medical records. An antibody titer for the receptor-binding domain of the spike protein in SARS-CoV-2 was used to assess antibody response after the second vaccine dose. Results: Study participants were 429 patients (241 [56.2%] age 12–15 years;188 [43.8%] age 16–25 years). The most common underlying diseases were genetic or chromosomal abnormalities and/or congenital anomalies, followed by endocrine or metabolic diseases;32% of participants were immunocompromised. Severe adverse events were observed after the second dose in 1 (0.4%) patient age 12–15 years and in 2 (1.1%) patients age 16–25 years;all patients recovered. Seropositivity after the second vaccine dose was 99.0%. The geometric mean antibody titer was higher in patients age 12–15 years versus 16–25 years (1603.3 [1321.8–1944.7] U/mL vs. 949.4 [744.2–1211.0] U/mL). Compared with immunocompetent patients, immunocompromised patients had a lower antibody titer (2106.8 [1917.5–2314.7] U/mL vs. 467.9 [324.4–674.8] U/mL). Conclusions: Vaccination with BNT162b2 was acceptably safe and immunogenic for adolescents and young adults with underlying disease. © 2022 Japanese Society of Chemotherapy and The Japanese Association for Infectious Diseases

Virtual Healthcare Is Everywhere, But Are Caregivers Satisfied With Virtual Learning And Does It Have A Role Moving Forward?

Rationale: Covid-19 introduced a shift towards telemedicine in paediatric healthcare. In-person education opportunities were therefore reduced. Virtual education opportunities are developing, but do caregivers want these permanently? This study assesses caregivers' experiences following an online anaphylaxis education session. Methods: This project uses data collected as part of the ongoing TEAAM study (Telemedicine as an Educational tool for caregivers regarding Auto-Injectors and Anaphylaxis Management). TEAAM examines the efficacy of online education in improving caregiver anaphylaxis knowledge using a virtual session (with a trainer and video resources), and pre- and post- intervention surveys. The TEAAM population consists of a convenience sample of caregivers of children attending allergy clinic, who have a food allergy and have been prescribed adrenaline. 65 caregivers have completed a post-intervention questionnaire in which we assessed their satisfaction level, perceived benefits, issues and comparison to in-person education. Results: 98.5%(64) of caregivers found participation beneficial (mean satisfaction score 4.7/5). Benefits included time saved (n=55,84.6%), and money saved (n=33,50.8%) due to less travel, having access to education while awaiting appointments (n=54,83.1%), and reduced exposure to infection (n=28,43.1%). During sessions, 78.5%(50) expressed no issues. 3.1%(2) had issues logging in. 9.2%(6) mentioned trainer difficulties in sharing screens. Qualitative comments showed confidence in online education platforms e.g., "I definitely think sessions like this are the way forward”. Only 1 caregiver believed it would be more useful if delivered in-person. Conclusions: Caregivers found online allergy education sessions worthwhile and would like them to continue. Moving forward, we need to build user-friendly, distance-learning resources and ensure staff are adequately trained.

Molecular mechanisms of muscular and non-muscular actions of neuromuscular blocking agents in critical illness: a narrative review

Despite frequent use of neuromuscular blocking agents in critical illness, changes in neuromuscular transmission with critical illness are not well appreciated. Recent studies have provided greater insights into the molecular mechanisms for beneficial muscular effects and non-muscular anti-inflammatory properties of neuromuscular blocking agents. This narrative review summarises the normal structure and function of the neuromuscular junction and its transformation to a ‘denervation-like' state in critical illness, the underlying cause of aberrant neuromuscular blocking agent pharmacology. We also address the important favourable and adverse consequences and molecular bases for these consequences during neuromuscular blocking agent use in critical illness. This review, therefore, provides an enhanced understanding of clinical therapeutic effects and novel pathways for the salutary and aberrant effects of neuromuscular blocking agents when used during acquired pathologic states of critical illness. © 2022 British Journal of Anaesthesia

Vaccine confidence among those living with allergy during the COVID pandemic (ACCORD): A scoping review.

Background: Reports of allergic reactions to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines, coupled with an "infodemic" of misinformation, carry the potential to undermine confidence in the COVID-19 vaccines. However, no attempts have been made to comprehensively synthesize the literature on how allergic disease and fear of allergic reactions to the vaccines contribute to hesitancy. Objectives: Our aim was to review the academic and gray literature on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and allergic reactions. Methods: We searched 4 databases (CINAHL, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, and Embase) using a search strategy developed by content and methodologic experts. No restrictions were applied regarding COVID-19 vaccine type, country of study, or patient age. Eligible articles were restricted to 10 languages. Results: Of the 1385 unique records retrieved from our search, 60 articles (4.3%) were included. Allergic reactions to the COVID-19 vaccine were rare but slightly more common in individuals with a history of allergic disease. A fifth of the studies (13 of 60 [22%]) discussed vaccine hesitancy due to possibility of an allergic reaction. Additionally, the present review identified research on details of vaccine-related anaphylaxis (eg, a mean and median [excluding clinical trial data] of 12.4 and 5 cases per million doses, respectively) and allergic reactions (eg, a mean and median [excluding clinical trial data] of 489 and 528 cases per million doses, respectively). Conclusion: COVID-19 vaccine acceptance among individuals living with allergy and among those with no history of allergic disease may be affected by fear of an allergic reaction. Despite the low incidence of allergic reactions to the COVID-19 vaccine, fear of such reactions is one of the most commonly cited concerns reported in the literature.

An update on anaphylaxis and urticaria.

Notable scientific developments have taken place in the field of anaphylaxis and urticaria in recent years; they are highlighted in this review. Case-control studies, genome-wide association studies, and large omics analyses have promoted further insights into not only the underlying genetics but also the biomarkers of both anaphylaxis and urticaria. New evidence regarding IgE-dependent and non-IgE-dependent mechanisms of anaphylaxis and urticaria, including the Mas-related G protein-coupled receptor (MRGPR [formerly MRG]) signaling pathway, has been gained. Putative elicitors of anaphylactic reactions in the context of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination and impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the management and course of chronic urticaria have been reported. Clinical progress has also been made regarding the severity grading and risk factors of anaphylaxis, as well as the distinction of phenotypes and elicitors of both diseases. Furthermore, novel treatment approaches for anaphylaxis and subtypes of urticaria have been assessed, with different outcome and potential for a better disease control or prevention.

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.

Clinical Phenotypes of Immediate First-Dose Reactions to mRNA COVID-19: A Multicenter Latent Class Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Although immediate potentially allergic reactions have been reported after dose 1 of mRNA coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines, comprehensively defined subtypes have not been clearly distinguished. OBJECTIVE: To define distinct clinical phenotypes of immediate reactions after dose 1 of mRNA COVID-19 vaccination, and to assess the relation of clinical phenotype to mRNA COVID-19 vaccine second dose tolerance. METHODS: This retrospective study included patients with 1 or more potentially allergic symptoms or signs within 4 hours of receiving dose 1 of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine and assessed by allergy/immunology specialists from 5 U.S. academic medical centers (January-June 2021). We used latent class analysis-an unbiased, machine-learning modeling method-to define novel clinical phenotypes. We assessed demographic, clinical, and reaction characteristics associated with phenotype membership. Using log-binomial regression, we assessed the relation between phenotype membership and second dose tolerance, defined as either no symptoms or mild, self-limited symptoms resolving with antihistamines alone. A sensitivity analysis considered second dose tolerance as objective signs only. RESULTS: We identified 265 patients with dose-1 immediate reactions with 3 phenotype clusters: (1) Limited or Predominantly Cutaneous, (2) Sensory, and (3) Systemic. A total of 223 patients (84%) received a second dose and 200 (90%) tolerated their second dose. Sensory cluster (all patients had the symptom of numbness or tingling) was associated with a higher likelihood of second dose intolerance, but this finding did not persist when accounting for objective signs. CONCLUSIONS: Three novel clinical phenotypes of immediate-onset reactions after dose 1 of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were identified using latent class analysis: (1) Limited or Predominantly Cutaneous, (2) Sensory, and (3) Systemic. Whereas these clinical phenotypes may indicate differential mechanistic etiologies or associations with subsequent dose tolerance, most individuals proceeding to their second dose tolerated it.