Keyhvass7099

Background Acute allergic reactions to messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines are rare but may limit public health immunization efforts. Objectives To characterize suspected allergic reactions to the first dose of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) mRNA vaccine and to assess the safety and utility of a two-step graded-dose protocol for the second dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine in patients with a history of low suspicion of anaphylaxis to their first dose. Methods This was a retrospective evaluation of referrals to the allergy and immunology clinic for a presumed allergic reaction to the first dose of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna) between December 17, 2020, and February 28, 2021. Recommendations for the second dose and outcomes were evaluated by trained board-certified allergists. Results Seventy-seven patients presented with a Pfizer-BioNTech reaction (56 [72.7%]) or with a Moderna reaction (21 [27.3%]). Most patients (69.7%) had symptom onset within 4 hours. Most commonly reported symptoms were cutaneous (51.9%), cardiovascular (48.1%), and respiratory (33.8%) symptoms. Recommendations included to proceed with the single dose (70.1%), two-step graded dose (19.5%), or deferral (10.4%). Twelve of 15 patients completed the second dose with a graded-dose protocol. Of these patients, five reported at least one or more similar symptoms as experienced with their first dose. Conclusion Of the patients with presumed allergic reactions to their first dose of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine, most were able to safely receive the second dose. For those with a low suspicion of anaphylaxis, the two-step graded protocol with the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was well tolerated. A graded-dose protocol could be an effective strategy for second-dose vaccination in those who may otherwise defer the second dose.Background Patients with hereditary angioedema (HAE) have been postulated to be at increased risk for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection due to inherent dysregulation of the plasma kallikrein-kinin system. Only limited data have been available to explore this hypothesis. Objective To assess the interrelationship(s) between COVID-19 and HAE. Methods Self-reported COVID-19 infection, complications, morbidity, and mortality were surveyed by using an online questionnaire. The participants included subjects with HAE with C1 inhibitor (C1INH) deficiency (HAE-C1INH) and subjects with HAE with normal C1-inhibitor (HAE-nl-C1INH), and household controls (normal controls). The impact of HAE medications was examined. Results A total of 1162 participants who completed the survey were analyzed, including 695 subjects with HAE-C1INH, 175 subjects with HAE-nl-C1INH, and 292 normal controls. The incidence of reported COVID-19 was not significantly different between the normal controls (9%) and the subjects with HAE complement cascade and tissue kallikrein-kinin pathways in the pathogenesis of COVID-19 in patients with HAE-C1INH.Background The spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has precipitated the worst global pandemic in a century, which has caused millions of infections and deaths as well as massive economic repercussions. Objective As with any pathogenic virus, it is crucial to understand its unique interactions with the human immune system so that pharmaceutical and prophylactic interventions can be deployed to effectively control the pandemic. Methods A literature search by using PubMed was conducted in 2020 with variants of the terms "COVID-19," "SARS-CoV-2," and "immunological response." English language articles that presented original data about the immunologic response to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were selected for review. This article reviewed the current understanding of the innate and adaptive immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection, including their relationship to current therapeutic and diagnostic strategies. Results SARS-CoV-2 uses several unique molecular techniques to evade detection by the innate immune system early in the course of infection, and upregulation of these innate immune pathways may possibly accelerate the time to recovery and prevent severe disease. Although the majority of cases results in the patients' recovery, a significant proportion of infections result in deaths prompted by the host's inflammatory overreaction to the infection, a response that can be attenuated with corticosteroids and potentially other immune modulators. Conclusion Current work by the scientific community to further understand how SARS-CoV-2 interacts with the human immune system will be invaluable to our response and preparedness for future coronavirus pandemics.Background Immunoglobulin replacement therapy (IGRT) is the foundation of treatment for the majority of patients with primary immunodeficiency. Clinical history and laboratory evaluation define the patients for whom IGRT is necessary and appropriate. During the 70 years since the first patient was treated, new products have led to the development of several modes of administration that facilitate the individualization of treatment that enables the optimization of care. Objective The objective was to explain the assessment of candidates for IGRT and approaches to reevaluating recipients of IGRT to decide on the need to continue treatment and to review the approaches to optimize IGRT. Methods The relevant literature was reviewed in the context of the author's experience supervising > 20,000 IGRT treatments over a 40-year period. PI3K inhibitor Results Providing the most appropriate form of IGRT for individual patients ameliorates disease and lessens the burden of care for patients with primary immunodeficiency. Conclusion IGRT is safe and effective when used to treat patients with primary immunodeficiency who meet established and appropriate clinical and laboratory criteria.Introduction Idiopathic anaphylaxis (IA) is a diagnosis of exclusion and is based on the inability to identify a causal relationship between a trigger and an anaphylactic event, despite a detailed patient history and careful diagnostic assessment. The prevalence of IA among the subset of people who experienced anaphylaxis is challenging to estimate and varies widely, from 10 to 60%; most commonly noted is ∼20% in the adult anaphylactic population. Comorbid atopic conditions, such as food allergy, allergic rhinitis, and asthma, are present in up to 48% of patients with IA. Improved diagnostic technologies and an increased understanding of conditions that manifest with symptoms associated with anaphylaxis have improved the ability to determine a more accurate diagnosis for patients who may have been initially diagnosed with IA. Methods Literature search was conducted on PubMed, Google Scholar and Embase. Results Galactose-α-1,3-galactose (α-gal) allergy, mast cell disorders, and hereditary a-tryptasemia are a fed. Conclusion The lack of diagnostic criteria, finite treatment options, and intricacies of making a differential diagnosis make IA challenging for patients and clinicians to manage.Background Parental concerns about the adverse effects of asthma medications can lead to nonadherence and uncontrolled asthma in children. Ciclesonide (CIC) is a prodrug, with low oropharyngeal deposition and bioavailability that may minimize the risk of local and systemic adverse effects. CIC is U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved for asthma in children ages ≥ 12 years. Objective To summarize safety results from the 13 phase II or III randomized controlled trials conducted in children with asthma during CIC clinical development. Methods Four 12- to 24-week trials compared the safety of once-daily CIC 40, 80, or 160 µg/day with placebo; four 12-week trials compared the safety of CIC 80 or 160 µg/day with either fluticasone or budesonide; one 12-month trial compared the long-term safety of CIC 40, 80, or 160 µg/day with fluticasone; one 12-month trial compared growth velocity of CIC 40 or 160 µg/day with placebo; and three cross-over trials compared short-term growth velocity and hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis effects of CIC 40, 80, or 160 µg/day with placebo or fluticasone. Results In all, 4399 children were treated with CIC. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (AE) was similar among the CIC doses and between CIC and placebo in short-term studies and between CIC and fluticasone in the long-term safety study. No CIC-related serious AEs were reported in any study. The incidence of treatment-related oral candidiasis was low and similar between CIC (≤0.5%) and placebo (≤0.7%) or active controls (≤0.5%) in the short-term studies. There was no clinically relevant HPA axis suppression or reduction in growth velocity associated with CIC. Conclusion Data from 13 studies demonstrate that CIC is associated with low rates of oropharyngeal AEs, with no indication of clinically relevant systemic effects in children with asthma. The favorable safety profile and demonstrated improvements in asthma control make CIC an ideal inhaled corticosteroid for the treatment of asthma in children.Background Ciclesonide (CIC) is an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) approved for the maintenance treatment of asthma in patients ages ≥ 12 years. The prodrug aspect of CIC is associated with a safety profile that may make it ideal for children. Objective The objective was to summarize efficacy results from the eight phase III, randomized, double-blind, controlled trials in children with asthma conducted during CIC clinical development. Methods Four trials compared CIC 40, 80, or 160 µg/day with placebo. Two trials compared CIC 160 µg/day with fluticasone propionate 200 µg/day, one trial compared CIC 80 or 160 µg/day with fluticasone 200 µg/day, and one trial compared CIC 160 µg/day with budesonide 400 µg/day. Results The primary end point was met by at least two CIC doses versus placebo in the trials in which the primary end point was the change from baseline in lung function outcome (forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV1] % predicted or morning peak expiratory flow [PEF]). A trial that compared CIC with placebo did not meet the primary end point of superiority in time-to-first severe wheeze exacerbation or lack of improvement. The primary end point of noninferiority to the active control (fluticasone or budesonide) in the change from baseline in a lung function outcome (FEV1, morning PEF, evening PEF) was met with the CIC 160-µg dose in all active control trials. CIC generally demonstrated statistically significant improvements in forced expiratory flow at 25%-75% of forced vital capacity, asthma symptoms, rescue medication use, and asthma control when compared with placebo and noninferiority for these outcomes compared with fluticasone or budesonide. Conclusion In children with asthma, once-daily CIC significantly improved large and small airway function, asthma symptoms, and asthma control, and reduced rescue medication use compared with placebo. CIC was comparable with other ICS used to treat asthma in children, which demonstrated its worth for the pediatric population.Background The management of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) is evolving, with an emphasis on treating the underlying type 2 inflammation. Objective The objective was to summarize the updated evidence-based medical and surgical treatment recommendations for CRSwNP, including the position of biologics in the treatment algorithm. Methods This review compared and contrasted the therapeutic recommendations presented by the European Position Paper on Rhinosinusitis and Nasal Polyps 2020 and the International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology Rhinosinusitis 2021. Results The long-term use of intranasal corticosteroids and the short-term use of oral corticosteroids are strongly recommended, whereas corticosteroid-eluting implants are considered an option. Although the use of saline solution rinses is recommended, there is uncertainty as to whether irrigation is more effective than sprays. Oral aspirin (ASA) desensitization, followed by ASA ≥ 300 mg daily for patients with ASA-exacerbated respiratory disease may be considered.