Is PEGylation of Drugs Associated with Hypersensitivity Reactions? An Analysis of the Italian National Spontaneous Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting System.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Evidence highlights the allergenic potential of PEGylated drugs because of the production of anti-polyethylene glycol immunoglobulins. We investigated the risk of hypersensitivity reactions of PEGylated drugs using the Italian spontaneous adverse drug reaction reporting system database. METHODS: We selected adverse drug reaction reports attributed to medicinal products containing PEGylated active substances and/or PEGylated liposomes from the Italian Spontaneous Reporting System in the period between its inception and March 2021. As comparators, we extracted adverse drug reaction reports of medicinal products containing the same non-PEGylated active substances and/or non-PEGylated liposomes (or compounds belonging to the same mechanistic class). A descriptive analysis of reports of hypersensitivity reactions was performed. Reporting rates and time to onset of hypersensitivity reactions were also calculated in the period between January 2009 and March 2021. As a measure of disproportionality, we calculated the reporting odds ratio. RESULTS: Overall, 3865 adverse drug reaction reports were related to PEGylated medicinal products and 11,961 to their non-PEGylated comparators. Around two-thirds of patients were female and reports mostly concerned patients aged between 46 and 64 years. The frequency of hypersensitivity reactions reporting was higher among PEGylated versus non-PEGylated medicinal products (11.7% vs 9.4%, p < 0.0001). The hypersensitivity reaction reporting rates were higher for PEGylated medicinal products versus non-PEGylated medicinal products, with reporting rate ratios that ranged from 1.4 (95% confidence interval 0.8-2.5) for pegfilgrastim versus filgrastim to 20.0 (95% confidence interval 2.8-143.5) for peginterferon alpha-2a versus interferon alpha-2a. The median time to onset of hypersensitivity reactions was 10 days (interquartile range: 0-61) for PEGylated medicinal products, and 36 days (interquartile range: 3-216) for non-PEGylated comparators. Statistically significant reporting odds ratios were observed when comparing the reporting of hypersensitivity reactions for PEGylated versus non-PEGylated medicinal products (reporting odds ratio: 1.3; 95% confidence interval 1.1-1.4). However, when using all other drugs as comparators, the disproportionality analysis showed no association with hypersensitivity reactions for PEGylated nor non-PEGylated medicinal products, thus suggesting that many other triggers of drug-induced hypersensitivity reactions play a major role. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this analysis of the Italian spontaneous adverse drug reaction database suggest a potential involvement for PEGylation in triggering drug-related hypersensitivity reactions, especially clinically relevant reactions. However, when comparing both PEGylated and non-PEGylated drugs under study to all other drugs no disproportionate reporting of hypersensitivity reactions was observed, probably due to a masking effect owing to the presence in the same database of other medicinal products increasing the threshold required to highlight a safety signal when the entire database is used as a reference.

Treatment and management of hypersensitivity reactions developed against anti-tuberculosis drug.

Background: The World Health Organization Global Tuberculosis Report 2021 defines tuberculosis as the second infectious disease that causes sickness and death after COVID 19 and ranks it as the 13^th among the global causes of death. However, the prevalence of the patients developing a hypersensitivity reaction against antituberculosis treatment is yet unknown. This study aimed to investigate the prevalence of drug allergy against antituberculosis treatment and the management of such a problem. Methods: This is a case--control study. All patients hospitalized in the tuberculosis inpatient service between February 01, 2015 and May 01, 2021 due to hypersensitivity reaction or who developed hypersensitivity during hospitalization were included in the case group. Patients who received inpatient treatment between the same dates and did not develop any drug allergy were included in the control group. The demographic characteristics of the patients, the tuberculosis diagnostic indicator, the type of hypersensitivity reaction that developed, the duration of the manifestation of the reaction and its treatment were evaluated for the purpose of the study. Results: A total of 2677 patients were hospitalized in the tuberculosis inpatient service between the specified dates. Two hundred and ten patients were consulted for drug hypersensitivity reactions in the Allergy Clinic. The prevalence of drug allergy in inpatients was calculated as 7.8%. One hundred and forty-eight patients examined by the authors were included in the study. Seventy-nine of the 148 patients (53.4%) who developed a hypersensitivity reaction were male, the mean age of these patients was 47.20 ± 18.95 years, 89.2% (n = 132) were citizens of the Republic of Turkey, 7.4% (n = 11) of the patients had received tuberculosis treatment before, 16.9% (25) had developed antituberculosis drug resistance and the bacteriological diagnosis was present in 79.7% (118) of the patients. Chi-square test results applied in the allergy group revealed that the risk of developing a hypersensitivity reaction is statistically significantly higher in female patients (P < 0.001), Turkish citizen patients (P = 0.004), in new cases (P = 0.017), in the group not diagnosed bacteriologically (histopathologically, clinically, and radiologically) (P = 0.006). The results of the logistic regression analysis performed also revealed that the risk of developing a hypersensitivity reaction is statistically significantly higher in female patients (P = 0.006), Turkish citizen patients (P = 0.023), in new cases (P = 0.017) and in the group not diagnosed bacteriologically (histopathologically, clinically, and radiologically) (P = 0.006). The success of the treatment was higher in the group that developed a hypersensitivity reaction compared to the control group. About 63.5% (94) of the patients examined developed Type I hypersensitivity reactions, whereas 36.7% (53) of the patients examined developed Type IV hypersensitivity reactions. Type I and Type IV reactions were observed simultaneously in a single patient. Considering the prevalence of developing a hypersensitivity reaction, pyrazinamide was determined as the drug inducing the hypersensitivity reaction in 25 (48.1%) patients. This figure was 15 patients (28.2%) for rifampicin, nine patients (17.3%) for isoniazid, and five patients (9.6%) for ethambutol. As a result, even patients who developed Type I or Type IV reactions were able to complete their antituberculous drug regimens with successful desensitization. Conclusion: The risk of developing an allergic reaction in patients who are administered on antituberculosis treatment is common, particularly in the first 2 months of treatment. However, we believe that the compliance of the patients to the antituberculosis treatment has been improved at the end of appropriate management of hypersensitivity reactions and the treatment results in success.

Evaluation of chlorhexidine sensitization amongst healthcare workers.

BACKGROUND: Chlorhexidine is an antiseptic widely used in healthcare settings. There are increasing reports of significant hypersensitivity reactions associated with its use. Development of chlorhexidine allergy has been identified as an important occupational risk to healthcare workers (HCWs). AIMS: To evaluate the prevalence of sensitization to chlorhexidine amongst HCWs at a large tertiary hospital to assess the potential allergic safety risks associated with chlorhexidine exposure to staff. METHODS: Sensitization to chlorhexidine was evaluated by measurement of serum-specific immunoglobulin E (IgE) in samples collected from staff assessed after a sharps-injury incident and laboratory staff collected for quality assurance procedures. This test method has been shown to have high sensitivity and specificity in the diagnosis of chlorhexidine allergy. Prevalence of sensitization was additionally evaluated with reference to changes in exposure to chlorhexidine-based hand hygiene products because of infection control procedures and the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. RESULTS: A total of 320 samples were examined. The prevalence of positive chlorhexidine-specific IgE was 2%. Prevalence of sensitization in samples collected before and after increased chlorhexidine exposure was 1% and 3%. This did not represent a statistically significant difference. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence figures for chlorhexidine sensitization in this study are higher than have been estimated previously for similar HCW cohorts. Increased exposure to chlorhexidine-based hand hygiene products was not demonstrated to increase sensitization in this group. Given the risk of severe reactions in sensitized individuals, this study indicates that evaluation of chlorhexidine allergy is important when investigating occupational allergy in HCWs.

Promoting ß-lactam utilization through suppression of electronic medical record cross-allergy alerts.

PURPOSE: Current literature surrounding management of patients with reported ß-lactam allergies focuses on allergy delabeling. Standard clinical decision support tools have not been optimized to be compatible with the currently accepted cross-reaction rate of 1% to 2%. This potentially promotes use of non-ß-lactam antibiotics, which are often not first-line therapy and may carry increased risks. The impact of electronic medical record (EMR) clinical decision support tool optimization on utilization of ß-lactam antibiotics in ß-lactam-allergic patients was evaluated. METHODS: A retrospective pre-post ß-lactam cross-allergy EMR alert suppression quality improvement intervention cohort study of ß-lactam-allergic adult inpatients prescribed antibiotics was conducted. Preintervention baseline data were collected for an initial cohort admitted during September 2018. The intervention, in which clinical decision support rules were updated to display ß-lactam cross-sensitivity allergy alerts only for ß-lactam-allergic patients with documentation of organization-defined high-severity reactions of anaphylaxis, hives, and shortness of breath, was implemented August 20, 2019. The postintervention cohort included patients admitted during September 2019. RESULTS: A 91% increase in the percentage of ß-lactam-allergic patients who received a ß-lactam agent at any time during their admission was noted after the intervention (26.6% vs 51%, P < 0.001). Statistically significant decreases in prescribing of alternative antibiotic classes were seen for fluoroquinolones (decrease from 45.3% to 26%, P < 0.001), aminoglycosides (decrease from 9.4% to 2.9%, P = 0.002), and aztreonam (decrease from 30% to 16.7%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: EMR ß-lactam cross-allergy alert optimization consistent with current literature significantly improved the utilization of alternative ß-lactam subclasses, mostly through ß-lactam prescribing as initial therapy in ß-lactam-allergic 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.

Drug allergy management in the elderly.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Drug allergy management has previously not been emphasized in the elderly. However, the geriatric population poses several unique characteristics, challenges for drug allergy testing and considerations in the management. Especially in the era of COVID-19, the elderly population is a vulnerable cohort and reviewing the management during this unprecedented time is both timely and relevant. RECENT FINDINGS: In recent years, larger scale studies focusing on the epidemiology and prevalence trends of drug allergies among older adults has been summarized in this review. Emphasis on anaphylaxis in the older adults has been studied. SUMMARY: There are many implications of these findings. Epidemiological studies are useful in realizing the burden and spectrum of drug allergies on our healthcare system. It has allowed us to identify certain barriers in drug allergy management and develop ways to overcome these challenges through. Lastly, we have proposed an approach to drug allergy management based on previous studies as well as from our perspective and local experience.

Optimizing preoperative antibiotics in patients with ß-lactam allergies: A role for pharmacy.

PURPOSE: Patients with a reported ß-lactam allergy (BLA) are often given alternative perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis, increasing risk of surgical site infections (SSIs), acute kidney injury (AKI), and Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI). The purpose of this study was to implement and evaluate a pharmacist-led BLA clarification interview service in the preoperative setting. METHODS: A pharmacist performed BLA clarification telephone interviews before elective procedures from November 2018 to March 2019. On the basis of allergy history and a decision algorithm, first-line preoperative antibiotics, alternative antibiotics, or allergy testing referral was recommended. The pharmacist intervention (PI) group was compared to a standard of care (SOC) group who underwent surgery from November 2017 to March 2018. RESULTS: Eighty-seven patients were included, with 50 (57%) and 37 (43%) in the SOC and PI groups, respectively. The most common surgeries included orthopedic surgery in 41 patients (47%) and neurosurgery in 17 patients (20%). In the PI group, all BLA labels were updated after interview. Twenty-three patients were referred for allergy testing, 12 of the 23 (52%) completed BLA testing, and penicillin allergies were removed for 9 of the 12 patients. Overall, 28 of the 37 (76%) pharmacy antibiotic recommendations were accepted. Cefazolin use significantly increased from 28% to 65% after the intervention (P = 0.001). SSI occurred in 5 (10%) patients in the SOC group and no patients in the PI group (P = 0.051). All of these SSIs were associated with alternative antibiotics. Incidence of AKI and CDI was similar between the groups. No allergic reactions occurred in either group. CONCLUSION: Implementation of a pharmacy-driven BLA reconciliation significantly increased ß-lactam preoperative use without negative safety outcomes.

Iodine allergy: Common misperceptions.

PURPOSE: The current evidence regarding iodine-containing compounds and iodine allergy cross-reactivity is reviewed. SUMMARY: Iodine is an essential human nutrient found in the thyroid gland. It is used in the synthesis of the thyroid hormones thyroxine and triiodothyroxine. Patients who report having adverse reactions to iodine-containing substances are often labelled as having an "iodine allergy," which can result in delays in care or patients being denied essential iodinated contrast media (ICM) or other iodine-containing drugs. A literature review was conducted to evaluate the evidence regarding iodine allergy and iodine-containing drugs. Of 435 articles considered potentially appropriate for full review (plus 12 additional articles included on the basis of references from the eligible articles), 113 could not be obtained. After exclusion of 353 articles that did not meet all inclusion criteria, the remaining 81 articles were included in the review. The results of the literature review indicated that iodine has not been shown to be the allergen responsible for allergic reactions to iodinated contrast media, amiodarone, povidone-iodine, and other iodine-containing compounds. CONCLUSION: There is a lack of evidence to support cross-reactivity between iodine-containing compounds in so called iodine-allergic individuals.