The Use of Hyaluronidase in Aesthetic Practice: A Comparative Study of Practitioner Usage in Elective and Emergency Situations.

BACKGROUND: Hyaluronic acids (HAs) continue to be the fillers of choice worldwide and their popularity is growing. Adverse events (AEs) are able to be resolved through the use of hyaluronidase (HYAL). However, routine HYAL use has been at issue due to perceived safety issues. OBJECTIVES: There are currently no guidelines on the use of HYAL in aesthetic practice, leading to variability in storage, preparation, skin testing, and beliefs concerning AEs. This manuscript interrogated the use of this agent in daily practice. METHODS: A 39-question survey concerning HYAL practice was completed by 264 healthcare practitioners: 244 from interrogated databases and 20 from the consensus panel. Answers from those in the database were compared to those of the consensus panel. RESULTS: Compared to the database group, the consensus group was more confident in the preparation of HYAL, kept reconstituted HYAL for longer, and was less likely to skin test for HYAL sensitivity and more likely to treat with HYAL in an emergency, even in those with a wasp or bee sting anaphylactic history. Ninety-two percent of all respondents had never observed an acute reaction to HYAL. Just over 1% of respondents had ever observed anaphylaxis. Five percent of practitioners reported longer-term adverse effects, including 3 respondents who reported loss of deep tissues. Consent before injecting HA for the possible requirement of HYAL was always obtained by 74% of practitioners. CONCLUSIONS: Hyaluronidase would appear to be an essential agent for anyone injecting hyaluronic acid filler. However, there is an absence of evidence-based recommendations with respect to the concentration, dosing, and treatment intervals of HYAL, and these should ideally be available.

Penicillin allergy status and its effect on antibiotic prescribing, patient outcomes and antimicrobial resistance (ALABAMA): protocol for a multicentre, parallel-arm, open-label, randomised pragmatic trial.

INTRODUCTION: Incorrect penicillin allergy records are recognised as an important barrier to the safe treatment of infection and affect an estimated 2.7 million people in England. Penicillin allergy records are associated with worse health outcome and antimicrobial resistance. The ALlergy AntiBiotics And Microbial resistAnce (ALABAMA) trial aims to determine if an intervention package, centred around a penicillin allergy assessment pathway (PAAP) initiated in primary care, is safe and effective in improving patient health outcomes and antibiotic prescribing. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The ALABAMA trial is a multicentre, parallel-arm, open-label, randomised pragmatic trial with a nested pilot study. Adults (≥18 years) with a penicillin allergy record and who have received antibiotics in the previous 24 months will be eligible for participation. Between 1592 and 2090 participants will be recruited from participating National Health Service general practices in England. Participants will be randomised to either usual care or intervention to undergo a pre-emptive PAAP using a 1:1 allocation ratio. The primary outcome measure is the percentage of treatment response failures within 28 days of an index prescription. 2090 and 1592 participants are estimated to provide 90% and 80% power, respectively, to detect a clinically important absolute difference of 7.9% in primary outcome at 1 year between groups. The trial includes a mixed-methods process evaluation and cost-effectiveness evaluation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This trial has been approved by London Bridge Research Ethics Committee (ref: 19/LO/0176). It will be conducted in compliance with Good Clinical Practice guidelines according to the Declaration of Helsinki. Informed consent will be obtained from all subjects involved in the study. The primary trial results will be submitted for publication to an international, peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN20579216.

Making Sense of Late Tissue Nodules Associated With Hyaluronic Acid Injections.

BACKGROUND: The pathogenesis of delayed-onset tissue nodules (DTNs) due to hyaluronic acid (HA) injections is uncertain. OBJECTIVES: To formulate a rational theory for DTN development and their avoidance and treatment. METHODS: A multidisciplinary and multicountry DTN consensus panel was established, with 20 questions posed and consensus sought. Consensus was set at 75% agreement. RESULTS: Consensus was reached in 16 of 20 questions regarding the pathogenesis of DTNs, forming the basis for a classification and treatment guide. CONCLUSIONS: The group believes that filler, pathogens, and inflammation are all involved in DTNs and that DTNs most likely are infection initiated with a variable immune response. Injected filler may incorporate surface bacteria, either a commensal or a true pathogen, if the skin barrier is altered. The initially high molecular weight HA filler is degraded to low molecular weight HA (LMWHA) at the edge of the filler. Commensals positioned within the filler bolus may be well tolerated until the filler is degraded and the commensal becomes visible to the immune system. LMWHA is particularly inflammatory in the presence of any local bacteria. Commensals may still be tolerated unless the immune system is generally heightened by viremia or vaccination. Systemic pathogenic bacteremia may also interact with the filler peripheral LMWHA, activating Toll-like receptors that induce DTN formation. Given this scenario, attention to practitioner and patient hygiene and early systemic infection treatment deserve attention. Classification and treatment systems were devised by considering each of the 3 factors-filler, inflammation, and infection-separately.