Phil Lieberman

Epidemiology of anaphylaxis: findings of the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology Epidemiology of Anaphylaxis Working Group.

OBJECTIVE To improve understanding of the epidemiology of anaphylaxis. DATA SOURCES We performed a qualitative review by hand of the major epidemiology studies of anaphylaxis. This review was restricted to articles in the English language. STUDY SELECTION Articles chosen were selected by the committee and dated back to 1968. There was no specific criterion used for selection except the determination of the members of the committee. RESULTS Data on anaphylaxis incidence and prevalence are sparse and often imprecise. Findings are based on diverse study designs and are not entirely comparable. These factors have contributed to widely varying estimates of the frequency of this important condition. The roundtable discussion led to an improved estimation of the frequency of anaphylaxis: approximately 50 to 2,000 episodes per 100,000 persons or a lifetime prevalence of 0.05% to 2.0%. The largest number of incident cases is among children and adolescents. In addition to underdiagnosis, we noted undertreatment, especially for those at highest risk (ie, those without immediate access to treatment with epinephrine). CONCLUSIONS Anaphylaxis is a relatively common problem, affecting up to 2% of the population. Further data on epinephrine dispensing could improve current estimates. Another way to improve current understanding would be through better population-based study designs in different geographic regions. A recurring theme was the importance of broader access to self-injectable epinephrine for high-risk populations. An improved epidemiologic understanding of this disorder would aid ongoing efforts to reduce morbidity and mortality from anaphylaxis and could provide important clues for primary prevention.

Biphasic anaphylactic reactions

OBJECTIVE To examine the impact of the second phase of a biphasic response on the required observation time after resolution of symptoms that occurred during the initial phase. DATA SOURCES We performed a MEDLINE search of the literature for studies published between January 1970 and January 2005 on biphasic response using the keywords anaphylaxis, biphasic anaphylaxis, late phase reaction, and early phase reaction. STUDY SELECTION Prospective studies, retrospective studies, and case reports were selected for inclusion in this review. RESULTS The incidence of biphasic anaphylactic reactions as described in the literature is highly variable, ranging from a low of 1% to a high of 20% of episodes. There is no clear consensus regarding distinguishing features of the primary response that predicts the occurrence of a secondary response. However, the severity of the reaction, the time of onset after administration of antigen before the occurrence of symptoms of the primary response, the presence of hypotension or laryngeal edema during the primary response, and the history of a previous biphasic reaction have all been mentioned as risk factors in various studies. The severity of the late-phase reaction is highly variable, and events have ranged from mild to severe with rare fatalities. Most late-phase reactions, however, are mild to moderate in severity. A delay in the administration of epinephrine and too small a dose of epinephrine given for the primary response have also been mentioned as risk factors. It is unclear whether corticosteroids given for the primary event can prevent or ameliorate the second reaction. CONCLUSIONS Biphasic responses occur with significant frequency and therefore should be taken into consideration when one considers the observation period after the initial event. An observation period of 8 hours is sufficient for most reactions, but since reactions can occur as long as 72 hours after resolution of the primary event, some authors have recommended a 24-hour waiting period.

International consensus on (ICON) anaphylaxis

ICON: Anaphylaxis provides a unique perspective on the principal evidence-based anaphylaxis guidelines developed and published independently from 2010 through 2014 by four allergy/immunology organizations. These guidelines concur with regard to the clinical features that indicate a likely diagnosis of anaphylaxis -- a life-threatening generalized or systemic allergic or hypersensitivity reaction.They also concur about prompt initial treatment with intramuscular injection of epinephrine (adrenaline) in the mid-outer thigh, positioning the patient supine (semi-reclining if dyspneic or vomiting), calling for help, and when indicated, providing supplemental oxygen, intravenous fluid resuscitation and cardiopulmonary resuscitation, along with concomitant monitoring of vital signs and oxygenation. Additionally, they concur that H1-antihistamines, H2-antihistamines, and glucocorticoids are not initial medications of choice.For self-management of patients at risk of anaphylaxis in community settings, they recommend carrying epinephrine auto-injectors and personalized emergency action plans, as well as follow-up with a physician (ideally an allergy/immunology specialist) to help prevent anaphylaxis recurrences.ICON: Anaphylaxis describes unmet needs in anaphylaxis, noting that although epinephrine in 1 mg/mL ampules is available worldwide, other essentials, including supplemental oxygen, intravenous fluid resuscitation, and epinephrine auto-injectors are not universally available.ICON: Anaphylaxis proposes a comprehensive international research agenda that calls for additional prospective studies of anaphylaxis epidemiology, patient risk factors and co-factors, triggers, clinical criteria for diagnosis, randomized controlled trials of therapeutic interventions, and measures to prevent anaphylaxis recurrences. It also calls for facilitation of global collaborations in anaphylaxis research.In addition to confirming the alignment of major anaphylaxis guidelines, ICON: Anaphylaxis adds value by including summary tables and citing 130 key references. It is published as an information resource about anaphylaxis for worldwide use by healthcare professionals, academics, policy-makers, patients, caregivers, and the public.

Efficacy of azelastine nasal spray in the treatment of vasomotor (perennial nonallergic) rhinitis

BACKGROUND Azelastine hydrochloride is an antihistamine with anti-inflammatory properties that is available in the United States in a nasal spray formulation for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis. Vasomotor (perennial nonallergic) rhinitis (VMR) is a noninfectious, chronic rhinitis usually not associated with inflammatory cell infiltration. OBJECTIVE Two multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group clinical trials were conducted to determine whether patients with symptoms of VMR (rhinorrhea, sneezing, postnasal drip, and nasal congestion) could be effectively treated with azelastine nasal spray. METHODS All of the patients who participated in the trials had a diagnosis of VMR, symptoms for at least 1 year, negative skin tests for a mixed panel of seasonal and perennial allergens, and a nasal cytology examination negative for eosinophils. After a 1-week, single-blind, placebo lead-in period, patients who met the symptom severity qualification criteria were randomized to receive either azelastine nasal spray (two sprays per nostril twice daily, 1.1 mg/day) or placebo nasal spray for 21 days. Patients recorded the severity of their VMR symptoms on diary cards each morning and evening of the trial using a four-point symptom rating scale (0 = none to 3 = severe). The primary efficacy variable was the overall reduction from baseline in the total vasomotor rhinitis symptom score (TVRSS) over the 21-day, double-blind treatment period. RESULTS In both studies, azelastine nasal spray significantly (study 1, P = .002; study 2, P = .005) reduced the TVRSS from baseline when compared with placebo. Significant improvement was observed within the first week and improvement in all symptoms favored treatment with azelastine nasal spray. No serious or unexpected adverse events were reported in either study. Bitter taste (19% vs 2%) was the only adverse experience that occurred with a statistically significantly greater incidence in the azelastine group than in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS This is the first demonstration of the efficacy of an antihistamine in the therapy of VMR in two double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials.

Clinically relevant effect of a new intranasal therapy (MP29-02) in allergic rhinitis assessed by responder analysis.

Background: It is unclear what constitutes a clinically meaningful response for allergic rhinitis (AR) outcomes. The objectives of these post hoc analyses were (1) to define a clinically meaningful response using novel efficacy analyses (including a responder analysis), and (2) to compare the efficacy of MP29-02 [a novel intranasal formulation of azelastine hydrochloride (AZE) and fluticasone propionate (FP)] with commercially available FP, AZE and placebo in seasonal AR (SAR) patients, using these novel analyses. Methods: 610 moderate-to-severe SAR patients (≥12 years old) were randomized into a double-blind, placebo-controlled, 14-day, parallel-group trial. Change from baseline in the reflective total nasal symptom score (rTNSS) over 14 days was the primary outcome. Post hoc endpoints included the sum of nasal and ocular symptoms (rT7SS), efficacy by disease severity and by predominant nasal symptom, and a set of responder analyses. Results: MP29-02 most effectively reduced rT7SS (relative greater improvement: 52% to FP; 56% to AZE) and both nasal and ocular symptoms irrespective of severity. More MP29-02 patients achieved a ≥30, ≥50, ≥60, ≥75 and ≥90% rTNSS reduction, which occurred days faster than with either active comparator; MP29-02 alone was superior to placebo at the ≥60% (or higher) threshold. One in 2 MP29-02 patients achieved a ≥50% rTNSS reduction and 1 in 6 achieved complete/near-to-complete response. Only MP29-02 was consistently superior to placebo for all patients, whatever their predominant symptom. Conclusions: MP29-02 provided faster and more complete symptom control than first-line therapies. It was consistently superior irrespective of severity, response criteria or patient-type, and may be considered the drug of choice for moderate-to-severe AR. These measures define a new standard for assessing relevance in AR.

Anaphylactoid reactions to radiocontrast material

CASE PRFSENTATION Dr. Erffmeyer: A 53-yr-old white man was having an intravenous pyelogram performed to evaluate asymptomatic hematuria. Approximately 30 set after the RCM had been infused, the patient complained of generalized pruritus. This was followed in rapid succession by the appearance of scattered urticarial lesions and sensations of chest tightness, shortness of breath, and light-headedness. The patient was found on examination to have scattered expiratory wheezes on auscultation of the lungs, a blood pressure of SO/O mm Hg, and a regular .heart rate of 170 bpm. The patient was administered 0.3 ml of epinephrine subcutaneously. Within a few minutes the blood pressure had returned to normal, and the shortness of breath and pruritus had subsided. Fortunately, no further treatment was necessary, and the patienj, recovered completely.

Concerns about intranasal corticosteroids for over-the-counter use: position statement of the Joint Task Force for the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology and the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology

The Joint Task Force for the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology and the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology was charged with formulating a position paper regarding the potential release of intranasal corticosteroids for over-the-counter use. We took the position that safety issues regarding this proposal would be our sole concern. We reviewed the literature to evaluate the frequency and severity of potential adverse events related to the administration of intranasal corticosteroids. We limited this review to 5 areas: (1) effects on growth, (2) ocular effects, (3) effects on bone, (4) effects on the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, and (5) local adverse effects. After review of the available data, we concluded that intranasal corticosteroids should remain prescription-only drugs. Patients receiving an intranasal corticosteroid should be instructed in its use and that use should be monitored by a physician or an appropriately trained medical provider (eg, nurse practitioner or physician assistant) under the direct supervision of a physician. This conclusion was reached based on the evidence that corticosteroids administered by any route, including the intranasal route, have the potential to cause adverse effects in all the areas noted herein. Our conclusion was strengthened by the fact that these adverse effects can be insidious and therefore not evident for many years; there is the potential for overuse; patients could also have access to other forms of topically administered corticosteroids, thus increasing their total dose; and individuals vary in their susceptibility to corticosteroid-induced adverse effects. We were also influenced to take this position knowing that generally reassuring data regarding the use of respiratory tract-administered corticosteroids are based on mean data and that all such studies have shown outliers in whom adverse effects were evident. Thus, as stated, we recommend that intranasal corticosteroids remain prescription-only drugs.

Anaphylaxis and cardiovascular disease: therapeutic dilemmas

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) increases the risk of severe or fatal anaphylaxis, and some medications for CVD treatment can exacerbate anaphylaxis. The aim of this article is to review the effect of anaphylaxis on the heart, the potential impact of medications for CVD on anaphylaxis and anaphylaxis treatment, and the cardiovascular effects of epinephrine. The therapeutic dilemmas arising from these issues are also discussed and management strategies proposed. PubMed searches were performed for the years 1990–2014 inclusive, using terms such as angiotensin‐converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, adrenaline, allergic myocardial infarction, anaphylaxis, angiotensin‐receptor blockers (ARBs), beta‐adrenergic blockers, epinephrine, and Kounis syndrome. Literature analysis indicated that: cardiac mast cells are key constituents of atherosclerotic plaques; mast cell mediators play an important role in acute coronary syndrome (ACS); patients with CVD are at increased risk of developing severe or fatal anaphylaxis; and medications for CVD treatment, including beta‐adrenergic blockers and ACE inhibitors, potentially exacerbate anaphylaxis or make it more difficult to treat. Epinephrine increases myocardial contractility, decreases the duration of systole relative to diastole, and enhances coronary blood flow. Its transient adverse effects include pallor, tremor, anxiety, and palpitations. Serious adverse effects (including ventricular arrhythmias and hypertension) are rare, and are significantly more likely after intravenous injection than after intramuscular injection. Epinephrine is life‐saving in anaphylaxis; second‐line medications (including antihistamines and glucocorticoids) are not. In CVD patients (especially those with ACS), the decision to administer epinephrine for anaphylaxis can be difficult, and its benefits and potential harms need to be carefully considered. Concerns about potential adverse effects need to be weighed against concerns about possible death from untreated anaphylaxis, but there is no absolute contraindication to epinephrine injection in anaphylaxis.

Long-term, Randomized Safety Study of MP29-02 (a Novel Intranasal Formulation of Azelastine Hydrochloride and Fluticasone Propionate in an Advanced Delivery System) in Subjects With Chronic Rhinitis

BACKGROUND MP29-02 is a novel intranasal formulation of azelastine hydrochloride and fluticasone propionate (FP) in an advanced delivery system for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis. OBJECTIVE The objective of this study was to evaluate the long-term safety of MP29-02 in subjects with chronic allergic (perennial) or nonallergic (vasomotor) rhinitis. METHODS This was a 1-year, randomized, open-label, active-controlled, parallel-group study in subjects with chronic allergic or nonallergic rhinitis. A total of 612 subjects were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to (1) MP29-02, one spray per nostril twice daily (total daily doses of azelastine hydrochloride and FP were 548 mcg and 200 mcg, respectively); or (2) FP, 2 sprays per nostril once daily (total daily dose 200 mcg). Safety and tolerability assessments were made at months 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12. RESULTS The incidence of treatment-related adverse events was low with both MP29-02 (9.4%) and FP (11.1%), with no evidence of late-occurring adverse events. Nasal examinations showed no evidence of nasal mucosal ulcerations or septal perforations with MP29-02, and the overall incidence of adverse findings was reduced as the study progressed. There were no unusual or unexpected ocular examination findings and no clinically important laboratory findings or clinically important differences between groups in fasting AM serum cortisol levels after 12 months of treatment. CONCLUSIONS MP29-02 was well tolerated. There were no safety findings that would preclude the long-term use of MP29-02 in the treatment of allergic rhinitis.

Open-label evaluation of azelastine nasal spray in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis and nonallergic vasomotor rhinitis

ABSTRACT Objective: The objective of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of azelastine (Astelin†) nasal spray, a topical second-generation antihistamine, in the treatment of symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis, seasonal allergic rhinitis with nonallergic triggers (mixed rhinitis), and nonallergic vasomotor rhinitis. † Astelin is a registered trade name of MedPointe Pharmaceuticals, Somerset, NJ Research design and methods: A total of 2343 primary care physicians, allergists, ENT specialists, and other health professionals participated in this 2-week, open-label evaluation of azelastine nasal spray. Data were collected through a physician questionnaire that included patient demographics, rhinitis diagnosis, medication history, and inclusion/exclusion criteria; and two patient questionnaires that included symptom history, response to previous rhinitis medications, symptom control, and level of satisfaction with azelastine nasal spray. A completed physician questionnaire and two completed patient questionnaires were required for each patient to be included in the analysis. Patients who qualified for enrollment were given open-label azelastine nasal spray and instructed to administer 2 sprays per nostril twice daily for 2 weeks. Results: A total of 1225 health professionals enrolled 7864 patients into the study. Completed physician and patient questionnaires were returned by 1081 health professionals and 5073 patients, 4364 of whom used azelastine nasal spray as their only rhinitis medication during the 2-week study period. The patients were predominantly caucasian (82.6%) and female (61.1%), with a mean age of 50 years. The majority had a diagnosis of mixed rhinitis (51.5%), followed by seasonal allergic rhinitis (32.3%), and nonallergic (vasomotor) rhinitis (16.2%). After 2 weeks of treatment, the percentage of patients reporting some control or complete control of individual symptoms ranged from 78% for postnasal drip in patients with nonallergic vasomotor rhinitis to 90% for sneezing in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis. More than 85% of patients who reported difficulty sleeping or impairment of daytime activities due to rhinitis symptoms had improvement in these parameters. Azelastine nasal spray was well tolerated, the discontinuation rate due to adverse events was 2.3%. Conclusions: Azelastine nasal spray was reported to control all rhinitis symptoms, including nasal congestion, regardless of rhinitis diagnosis during the 2-week study period. Patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis and patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis plus nonallergic triggers were identified as patient types most likely to respond to azelastine nasal spray.