Hereditary angioedema with normal C1 esterase inhibitor: Current paradigms and clinical dilemmas.

Background: A diagnosis of hereditary angioedema (HAE) with normal C1 esterase inhibitor (HAE-nl-C1-INH) can be challenging and pharmacologic management is not well defined. Objective: The objective was to discuss practical considerations in the clinical management of HAE-nl-C1-INH by using illustrative clinical vignettes to highlight and/or address select challenges. Methods: This was a narrative review. Results: Symptoms of HAE-nl-C1-INH overlap with HAE types I and II; the heterogeneity of presentation and symptom burden are diagnostic challenges. A patient history, with particular attention to whether urticaria or other symptoms of mast cell mediator release are present, is important because such symptoms would strongly suggest a mast cell-mediated pathway. A family history of angioedema is informative but a lack thereof does not rule out diagnosis. Expected laboratory findings would be normal for C4, C1-INH level and function, and Complement 1q; a genetic mutational analysis may be helpful, but current assays do not include all known mutations; most cases are categorized as unknown. To align with guideline-directed treatment approaches, the following stepwise approach is suggested for suspected HAE-nl-C1-INH: (1) thoroughly investigate the possibility of response to histaminergic and/or mast cell-targeting treatments; (2) if patients with normal C4, C1-INH level and/or function fail adequate trials with histamine/mast cell-directed therapy or have a mutation that suggests bradykinin pathway involvement, follow HAE type I and II treatment guidelines. Response to medications approved for HAE types I/II provides compelling support for a high clinical suspicion of HAE-nl-C1-INH. De-labeling an HAE-nl-C1-INH diagnosis may be appropriate if the initial diagnosis was made without adequate evaluation or if new information and/or testing indicates that the patient does not actually have HAE. Conclusion: Key unmet needs in HAE-nl-C1-INH include lack of confirmatory biomarker(s) for diagnosis and lack of prospective controlled clinical studies of pharmacologic products in this patient population.

Efficacy of a Clinical Decision Rule to Enable Direct Oral Challenge in Patients With Low-Risk Penicillin Allergy: The PALACE Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Fewer than 5% of patients labeled with a penicillin allergy are truly allergic. The standard of care to remove the penicillin allergy label in adults is specialized testing involving prick and intradermal skin testing followed by an oral challenge with penicillin. Skin testing is resource intensive, limits practice to specialist-trained physicians, and restricts the global population who could undergo penicillin allergy delabeling. Objective: To determine whether a direct oral penicillin challenge is noninferior to the standard of care of penicillin skin testing followed by an oral challenge in patients with a low-risk penicillin allergy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This parallel, 2-arm, noninferiority, open-label, multicenter, international randomized clinical trial occurred in 6 specialized centers, 3 in North America (US and Canada) and 3 in Australia, from June 18, 2021, to December 2, 2022. Eligible adults had a PEN-FAST score lower than 3. PEN-FAST is a prospectively derived and internationally validated clinical decision rule that enables point-of-care risk assessment for adults reporting penicillin allergies. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to either direct oral challenge with penicillin (intervention arm) or a standard-of-care arm of penicillin skin testing followed by oral challenge with penicillin (control arm). Main Outcome and Measure: The primary outcome was a physician-verified positive immune-mediated oral penicillin challenge within 1 hour postintervention in the intention-to-treat population. Noninferiority was achieved if a 1-sided 95% CI of the risk difference (RD) did not exceed 5 percentage points (pp). Results: A total of 382 adults were randomized, with 377 patients (median [IQR] age, 51 [35-65] years; 247 [65.5%] female) included in the analysis: 187 in the intervention group and 190 in the control group. Most patients had a PEN-FAST score of 0 or 1. The primary outcome occurred in 1 patient (0.5%) in the intervention group and 1 patient (0.5%) in the control group, with an RD of 0.0084 pp (90% CI, -1.22 to 1.24 pp). The 1-sided 95% CI was below the noninferiority margin of 5 pp. In the 5 days following the oral penicillin challenge, 9 immune-mediated adverse events were recorded in the intervention group and 10 in the control group (RD, -0.45 pp; 95% CI, -4.87 to 3.96 pp). No serious adverse events occurred. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, direct oral penicillin challenge in patients with a low-risk penicillin allergy was noninferior compared with standard-of-care skin testing followed by oral challenge. In patients with a low-risk history, direct oral penicillin challenge is a safe procedure to facilitate the removal of a penicillin allergy label. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04454229.

Guidelines for management of hereditary angioedema: What is new? What is missing?

Background: Hereditary angioedema is an autosomal dominant disease that presents with recurrent episodic swelling of the submucosal and/or subcutaneous tissues of the cutaneous, gastrointestinal, and respiratory systems. Evaluation and treatment guidelines have been published nationally and internationally to aid the treating provider. Methods: A review of the most cited and most recent updated guidelines was undertaken to review key points and to explore real-world feasibility of incorporating them into clinical practice. The International World Allergy Organization/European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (WAO/EAACI) Guideline for the Management of Angioedema - The 2017 Revision and Update, and the consensus reports from the Hereditary Angioedema International Working Group, the Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters focused practice parameter update, and the most recently updated US HAEA Medical Advisory Board 2020 Guidelines for the Management of Hereditary Angioedema were reviewed and summarized. Results: Key points that have been consistent throughout the guidelines include recommendations for evaluation and classification of hereditary angioedema as well as evidence-based guidelines for treatment. Further attention is required on the evaluation and continuous assessment of the burden of illness and quality of life (QoL). Conclusion: The guidelines for management of hereditary angioedema provide a framework for the clinician. However, the physician-patient dialog with regard to the patient disease experience, which includes attack frequency, severity, and Qol, must be continually assessed.

Patient perspectives on the treatment burden of injectable medication for hereditary angioedema.

Hereditary angioedema (HAE) is a rare, chronic disease characterized by debilitating swelling episodes in various parts of the body. Patients experience significant burdens related to the symptoms and management of HAE, which can affect their daily lives and reduce their overall quality of life. Prophylactic treatment options have expanded in the past decade to the benefit of patients; however, these therapies require scheduled injections, which can be painful, burdensome, and time consuming. We conducted an online survey of patients with HAE in the USA to better understand their experiences with available prophylactic medications and the associated treatment burdens. Our survey results suggest that most patients are satisfied with their current therapies but desire novel medications with a simpler route of administration and that, although most patients experience significant treatment-related burdens, they learn to cope with these challenges over time.

Caregivers' role in managing hereditary angioedema and perceptions of treatment-related burden.

Hereditary angioedema (HAE) is a rare genetic disease that results in recurrent, debilitating, and potentially life-threatening swelling episodes in the extremities, genitals, gastrointestinal tract, and upper airway. Patients can experience significant burdens related to their disease. Informal or familial caregivers often support patients with HAE and likely share in the disease-related burdens, although there are limited HAE caregiver-focused reports in the scientific literature. In the United States, we conducted an online survey of adults caring for an individual with HAE to better understand their experiences with the disease and identify psychosocial impacts of providing care for a patient with HAE. Thirty caregivers provided responses to the survey. Most caregivers were family members of the care recipient and many had HAE themselves. Caregivers reported participating in a number of medical-related tasks and experiencing some burdens as a result of caring for a person with HAE.

Physician and patient perspectives on the management of hereditary angioedema: a survey on treatment burden and needs.

Hereditary angioedema (HAE) is a rare disorder caused by genetic mutations that lead to recurrent episodes of swelling in various parts of the body. Prophylactic treatment is common for patients with HAE, and the therapeutic options have expanded in recent years. The current standard of care for prophylactic HAE therapies is subcutaneous treatment, which can be self-administered at home, greatly improving patient quality of life. As new therapies emerge, it is important for patients and physicians to discuss the risks and benefits associated with each treatment to develop an individualized approach to HAE management. We conducted surveys of patients with HAE and physicians who treat patients with HAE to identify prescribing trends for prophylactic HAE treatments and the impact that such treatments has on patients. Our results confirmed that newer, subcutaneous therapies are prescribed for HAE prophylaxis more frequently than other therapies in the United States and that treatment burdens still exist for patients with HAE. We found that physicians and patients were not always aligned on how treatment choices affect patients' lives, which may mean that there are opportunities for enhanced patient-physician dialog and shared decision-making in HAE management in the United States.

Assessment and management of disease burden and quality of life in patients with hereditary angioedema: a consensus report.

BACKGROUND: Hereditary angioedema (HAE) is a rare disease characterized by unpredictable, potentially life-threatening attacks, resulting in significant physical and emotional burdens for patients and families. To optimize care for patients with HAE, an individualized management plan should be considered in partnership with the physician, requiring comprehensive assessment of the patient's frequency and severity of attacks, disease burden, and therapeutic control. Although several guidelines and consensus papers have been published concerning the diagnosis and treatment of HAE, there has been limited specific clinical guidance on the assessment of disease burden and quality of life (QoL) in this patient population. Practical guidance is critical in supporting effective long-term clinical management of HAE and improving patient outcomes. The objective of this review is to provide evidence-based guidelines for an individualized assessment of disease burden and QoL in patients with HAE. METHODS: A consensus meeting was held on February 29, 2020, consisting of 9 HAE experts from the United States and Europe with extensive clinical experience in the treatment of HAE. Consensus statements were developed based on a preliminary literature review and discussions from the consensus meeting. RESULTS: Final statements reflect the consensus of the expert panel and include the assessment of attack severity, evaluation of disease burden, and long-term clinical management of HAE caused by C1-esterase inhibitor deficiency. Patient-reported outcome measures for assessing HAE attack severity and frequency are available and valuable tools; however, attack frequency and severity are insufficient markers of disease severity unless they are evaluated in the broader context of the effect on an individual patient's QoL. QoL assessments should be individualized for each patient and minimally, they should address the interference of HAE with work, school, social, family, and physical activity, along with access to and burden of HAE treatment. Advances in HAE therapies offer the opportunity for comprehensive, individualized treatment plans, allowing patients to achieve minimal attack burden with reduced disease and treatment burden. CONCLUSION: This consensus report builds on existing guidelines by expanding the assessment of disease burden and QoL measures for patients with HAE.

Experience with Intravenous Plasma-Derived C1-Inhibitor in Pregnant Women with Hereditary Angioedema: A Systematic Literature Review.

Consensus guidelines recommend plasma-derived C1 inhibitor (C1-INH) as first-line treatment in pregnant women with hereditary angioedema (HAE). We conducted a systematic review of the literature that describes experience with plasma-derived C1-INH during pregnancy. A literature search of PubMed was conducted in November 2018 using variants of "hereditary angioedema" and "pregnancy." English language articles that presented original data about the use of plasma-derived C1-INH during pregnancy were selected for data extraction. The search returned 253 unique records, of which 40 described the use of C1-INH during pregnancy (91 patients, 136 pregnancies). When the number of doses was reported, a total of 1562 doses were administered ranging from 500 to 3000 IU. Infusions were administered during all 3 trimesters and were most commonly administered during the third trimester. Overall, 1,490,500 IU of plasma-derived C1-INH were administered during pregnancy. Of the 128 fetuses for which outcomes were reported, 3 (2%) resulted in spontaneous abortion, 1 (1%) was stillborn, and 1 (1%) was a vanishing twin. Use of plasma-derived C1-INH in women with HAE during pregnancy has been widely reported in the scientific literature and has a favorable safety profile, supporting treatment guideline recommendations.

Penicillin allergy: A practical guide for clinicians.

Penicillin allergy is the most commonly reported drug allergy in the United States. However, after undergoing a complete evaluation by a board-certified allergist, including skin testing, 90% of patients labeled as 'penicillin-allergic' are able to tolerate penicillin. Clinical presentation is key in classifying reactions as either mediated by or not mediated by immunoglobulin E (IgE), and in determining which patients may benefit from penicillin skin testing, graded-dose challenge, or desensitization. Cross-reactivity between penicillin and other beta-lactams is less common than previously thought.

Utility of routine laboratory testing in management of chronic urticaria/angioedema.

BACKGROUND: Laboratory tests are routinely ordered to identify or rule out a cause in patients with chronic urticaria/angioedema (CUA). The results of these tests are usually within normal limits or unremarkable. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the proportion of abnormal test results in patients with CUA leading to a change in management and in outcomes of care. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of a random sample of adult patients with CUA from 2001-2009. RESULTS: Cases totaled 356: 166 with urticaria and angioedema (AE), 187 with urticaria, and 3 with only AE. Patients were predominately women (69.1%) and white (75.6%), with a mean age of 48 ± 15 years. Abnormalities were commonly seen in complete blood counts (34%) and in complete metabolic panels (9.4%). Among the 1,872 tests that were ordered, results of 319 (17%) were abnormal. Of 356 patients, 30 underwent further testing because of abnormalities in laboratory work. This represented 30 of 1,872 tests (1.60%). Only 1 patient benefited from a subsequent change in management. CONCLUSIONS: Laboratory testing in CUA patients referred for an Allergy and Immunology evaluation rarely lead to changes in management resulting in improved outcomes of care.

Glatiramer acetate: successful desensitization for treatment of multiple sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: Glatiramer acetate is an immunomodulatory drug that is widely prescribed for the treatment of multiple sclerosis. It is frequently associated with local injection site reactions and generalized urticaria. It is also associated with immediate postinjection systemic reactions in approximately 10% of patients. To our knowledge, no desensitization protocols for glatiramer acetate have been published to date. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of glatiramer acetate desensitization in a series of patients with multiple sclerosis. METHODS: Six patients with multiple sclerosis and glatiramer acetate-associated local or systemic reactions underwent a 4-hour outpatient desensitization procedure at Cleveland Clinic between 2003 and 2008. Beginning with 20 ng, we administered subcutaneous glatiramer acetate suspension in increasing dosages every 15 minutes. Patient outcomes were monitored by return clinic visit and telephone follow-up. RESULTS: No episodes of anaphylaxis or serious adverse reactions occurred during or immediately after desensitization. One patient suspended therapy after 14 months due to persistent local injection site reactions. All other patients successfully continued glatiramer acetate therapy. CONCLUSION: Glatiramer acetate offers significant benefit to patients with multiple sclerosis. Our experience suggests that patients who suspend its use owing to local or systemic reactions can be successfully and safely desensitized and can resume medication use. To our knowledge, this is the first report of successful desensitization to glatiramer acetate in patients with multiple sclerosis.

Sinusitis: allergies, antibiotics, aspirin, asthma.

Sinusitis is very common, so it is important to understand its pathophysiology, diagnosis, and medical and surgical treatments. In cases of chronic sinusitis, adjunctive therapies and evaluation by subspecialists may be warranted. Some special testing is needed to diagnose allergic fungal sinusitis. Most important is to understand that sinusitis is not a single entity but is associated with many comorbid conditions, notably asthma.