Sandra Nora González Díaz

Drug-Induced Anaphylaxis in Latin American Countries

BACKGROUND Information regarding the clinical features and management of drug-induced anaphylaxis (DIA) in Latin America is lacking. OBJECTIVE The objective of this study was to assess implicated medications, demographics, and treatments received for DIA in Latin American patients referred to national specialty centers for evaluation. METHOD A database previously used to compile information on drug-induced allergic reactions in 11 Latin American countries was used to identify and characterize patients presenting specifically with a clinical diagnosis of DIA. Information regarding clinical presentation, causative agent(s), diagnostic studies performed, treatment, and contributing factors associated with increased reaction severity was analyzed. RESULTS There were 1005 patients evaluated for possible drug hypersensitivity reactions during the study interval, and 264 (26.3%) met criteria for DIA. DIA was more frequent in adults and in elderly females (N = 129 [76.6%] and N = 30 [75%], respectively) compared with children and/or adolescents (N = 21 [42.9%], P < .01). Severe DIA was less frequent with underlying asthma (N = 22 vs 35 [38.6% vs 61.4%], P < .05) or atopy (N = 62 vs 71 [43% vs 59% ], P < .01). Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (N = 178 [57.8%]), beta-lactam antibiotics (N = 44 [14.3%]), and other antibiotics (N = 16 [5.2%]) were the most frequently implicated drug classes. Anaphylaxis was rated as severe in N = 133 (50.4%) and anaphylactic shock (AS) was present in N = 90 (34.1%). Epinephrine was only used in N = 73 (27.6%) overall, but in N = 70 (77.8%) of patients with AS. CONCLUSION In Latin American patients referred for evaluation of DIA, NSAIDs and antibiotics were implicated in approximately 80% of cases. Most of these reactions were treated in the emergency department. Epinephrine was administered in only 27.6% of all cases, although more frequently for anaphylactic shock. Dissemination of anaphylaxis guidelines among emergency department physicians should be encouraged to improve management of DIA.

100 Years of Immunotherapy: The Monaco Charter

Aims of the Monaco Charter: (1) to present the current evidence on the efficacy and safety of allergen-specific immunotherapy (SIT) and to address the reasons for its underuse in clinical practice; (2) to develop strategies to increase the awareness about the benefits and the hazards of SIT in allergic patients, lay public and healthcare professionals not trained in allergy, and (3) to make SIT accessible and affordable to eligible patients.

Allergy training and immunotherapy in Latin America: results of a regional overview.

BACKGROUND One main practice gap in allergology that has been detected in several regions of the world is the application of specific immunotherapy (SIT). The prescription and practice of SIT should characterize allergologic specialists, but there are regional discrepancies in such practice. A detailed knowledge of the regulatory and legislation aspects and drawbacks would help improve and harmonize SIT practice. OBJECTIVE To describe in Latin America the level of allergy training and the characteristics of the use of SIT, including the medical and legal aspects. METHODS Three sources were used: a 24-item questionnaire sent to 22 allergologic leaders in 11 Latin American countries, 2 face-to-face meetings, and information from health authorities involved in the approval of medical substances. RESULTS In 56% of countries, the specialty of allergology is a third-level care specialty and/or a subspecialty. Two countries have a special training program for pediatric allergists. Passing a board examination is mandatory in 3 countries, and recertification every 2 to 5 years occurs without examination. Sublingual and subcutaneous SITs are available in all Latin American countries. No legislation restricts SIT prescription and it can be performed by nonspecialists in 7 of 11 countries. In 90% of countries, allergists use allergen extracts from the United States (subcutaneous immunotherapy) and Europe (sublingual and subcutaneous immunotherapies), and 50% also manufacture extracts locally. Only 1 country has legal requirements for the quality of raw materials. CONCLUSION The present analysis helps to identify gaps in the field of allergologic training and SIT in Latin America, many of them amendable.