Pulmonary Health Hub

Poor subjective sleep quality was associated with subsequent symptomatic exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in an 18-month prospective study of 480 patients.

©marcociannarel/Thinkstock

“Poor sleep quality in COPD has previously been associated with reduced health-related quality of life and reduced physical activity during the day,” wrote Matthew Shorofsky, MD, of McGill University, Montreal, and associates. Their report is in CHEST. “However, to our knowledge, this is the first population-based longitudinal study evaluating exacerbation risk in relation to subjective sleep disturbances and assessing previously diagnosed and undiagnosed COPD.”

The study included participants enrolled in the Canadian Respiratory Research Network and the Canadian Cohort Obstructive Lung Disease (CanCOLD) study who had COPD, available baseline PSQI scores, and 18 months of follow-up data. The PSQI includes 19 questions on sleep quality, latency, duration, efficiency, disturbances, use of sleep medications, and daytime dysfunction. Total score ranges between 0 and 21, and a score above 5 is considered poor sleep. Online patient surveys and quarterly phone interviews were used to track symptom-based exacerbations (at least 48 hours of increased dyspnea, sputum volume, or sputum purulence) and event-based exacerbations (a symptom-based exacerbation plus the use antibiotics or corticosteroids or health services).

At baseline, 203 patients met the PSQI threshold for poor sleep quality. During follow-up, 185 patients had at least one COPD exacerbation. Poor sleep at baseline was significantly more prevalent among patients with symptoms-based COPD exacerbations (50.3%) than among patients without symptoms-based exacerbations (37.3%; P = .01). Poor baseline sleep quality remained a significant risk factor for symptom-based exacerbations of COPD even after the researchers accounted for the effect of age, gender, body mass index, smoking, depression, angina, baseline inhaled respiratory medications, forced expiratory volume in 1 second %predicted, and modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) dyspnea scale (adjusted risk ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.18; P =.02).

Patients with at least one symptomatic exacerbation of COPD were significantly more likely to meet the threshold for poor sleep quality on the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index and have significantly higher median PSQI scores compared with patients without exacerbations (6.0 [interquartile range, 3.0 to 8.0] vs. 5.0 [2.0 to 7.0]; P = .01). Poor baseline sleep quality also was associated with event-based exacerbations and with a shorter time to symptoms-based exacerbations. Sleep disturbances, such as rising to void or experiencing respiratory issues or pain during sleep, correlated most strongly with symptoms-based exacerbations.

Several factors could explain the link between poor sleep quality and COPD exacerbations, the investigators wrote. Patients with inadequately controlled COPD have more frequent and unstable respiratory symptoms, which could disrupt sleep either directly or indirectly (secondary to medication use or anxiety, for example). Conversely, sleep disruption can impede immune function and increase systemic inflammation, which might worsen COPD control and increase exacerbation risk. Poor sleep can impair memory and cognition, “potentially fostering medication nonadherence and symptom flare-up, especially in the older COPD population.” Although the link is poorly understood, patients with COPD often have comorbid obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), which is associated with COPD exacerbations, the researchers wrote. Treating OSA is associated with improved COPD morbidity and fewer exacerbations and hospitalizations.

The researchers acknowledged limitations to their study design. “Individuals with asthma or other obstructive lung diseases could not be definitively excluded; methacholine challenges were not performed. However, analyses excluding self-reported asthma were consistent with our main results. Second, because definitions of COPD exacerbation vary among studies, comparison may be limited, but CanCOLD used a standard definition, as recommended by GOLD.”

The CanCOLD study has received funding from the Canadian Respiratory Research Network, Astra Zeneca Canada, Boehringer Ingelheim Canada, GlaxoSmithKline Canada, Novartis, Merck Nycomed, Pfizer Canada, and Theratechnologies. Dr. Shorofsky had no disclosures. Several coinvestigators reported ties to GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Almirall, and Theratechnologies.

SOURCE: Shorofsky M et al. CHEST. 2019 May 28. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2019.04.132.

Poor subjective sleep quality was associated with subsequent symptomatic exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in an 18-month prospective study of 480 patients.

©marcociannarel/Thinkstock

“Poor sleep quality in COPD has previously been associated with reduced health-related quality of life and reduced physical activity during the day,” wrote Matthew Shorofsky, MD, of McGill University, Montreal, and associates. Their report is in CHEST. “However, to our knowledge, this is the first population-based longitudinal study evaluating exacerbation risk in relation to subjective sleep disturbances and assessing previously diagnosed and undiagnosed COPD.”

The study included participants enrolled in the Canadian Respiratory Research Network and the Canadian Cohort Obstructive Lung Disease (CanCOLD) study who had COPD, available baseline PSQI scores, and 18 months of follow-up data. The PSQI includes 19 questions on sleep quality, latency, duration, efficiency, disturbances, use of sleep medications, and daytime dysfunction. Total score ranges between 0 and 21, and a score above 5 is considered poor sleep. Online patient surveys and quarterly phone interviews were used to track symptom-based exacerbations (at least 48 hours of increased dyspnea, sputum volume, or sputum purulence) and event-based exacerbations (a symptom-based exacerbation plus the use antibiotics or corticosteroids or health services).

At baseline, 203 patients met the PSQI threshold for poor sleep quality. During follow-up, 185 patients had at least one COPD exacerbation. Poor sleep at baseline was significantly more prevalent among patients with symptoms-based COPD exacerbations (50.3%) than among patients without symptoms-based exacerbations (37.3%; P = .01). Poor baseline sleep quality remained a significant risk factor for symptom-based exacerbations of COPD even after the researchers accounted for the effect of age, gender, body mass index, smoking, depression, angina, baseline inhaled respiratory medications, forced expiratory volume in 1 second %predicted, and modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) dyspnea scale (adjusted risk ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.18; P =.02).

Patients with at least one symptomatic exacerbation of COPD were significantly more likely to meet the threshold for poor sleep quality on the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index and have significantly higher median PSQI scores compared with patients without exacerbations (6.0 [interquartile range, 3.0 to 8.0] vs. 5.0 [2.0 to 7.0]; P = .01). Poor baseline sleep quality also was associated with event-based exacerbations and with a shorter time to symptoms-based exacerbations. Sleep disturbances, such as rising to void or experiencing respiratory issues or pain during sleep, correlated most strongly with symptoms-based exacerbations.

Several factors could explain the link between poor sleep quality and COPD exacerbations, the investigators wrote. Patients with inadequately controlled COPD have more frequent and unstable respiratory symptoms, which could disrupt sleep either directly or indirectly (secondary to medication use or anxiety, for example). Conversely, sleep disruption can impede immune function and increase systemic inflammation, which might worsen COPD control and increase exacerbation risk. Poor sleep can impair memory and cognition, “potentially fostering medication nonadherence and symptom flare-up, especially in the older COPD population.” Although the link is poorly understood, patients with COPD often have comorbid obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), which is associated with COPD exacerbations, the researchers wrote. Treating OSA is associated with improved COPD morbidity and fewer exacerbations and hospitalizations.

The researchers acknowledged limitations to their study design. “Individuals with asthma or other obstructive lung diseases could not be definitively excluded; methacholine challenges were not performed. However, analyses excluding self-reported asthma were consistent with our main results. Second, because definitions of COPD exacerbation vary among studies, comparison may be limited, but CanCOLD used a standard definition, as recommended by GOLD.”

The CanCOLD study has received funding from the Canadian Respiratory Research Network, Astra Zeneca Canada, Boehringer Ingelheim Canada, GlaxoSmithKline Canada, Novartis, Merck Nycomed, Pfizer Canada, and Theratechnologies. Dr. Shorofsky had no disclosures. Several coinvestigators reported ties to GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Almirall, and Theratechnologies.

SOURCE: Shorofsky M et al. CHEST. 2019 May 28. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2019.04.132.

Poor subjective sleep quality was associated with subsequent symptomatic exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in an 18-month prospective study of 480 patients.

©marcociannarel/Thinkstock

“Poor sleep quality in COPD has previously been associated with reduced health-related quality of life and reduced physical activity during the day,” wrote Matthew Shorofsky, MD, of McGill University, Montreal, and associates. Their report is in CHEST. “However, to our knowledge, this is the first population-based longitudinal study evaluating exacerbation risk in relation to subjective sleep disturbances and assessing previously diagnosed and undiagnosed COPD.”

The study included participants enrolled in the Canadian Respiratory Research Network and the Canadian Cohort Obstructive Lung Disease (CanCOLD) study who had COPD, available baseline PSQI scores, and 18 months of follow-up data. The PSQI includes 19 questions on sleep quality, latency, duration, efficiency, disturbances, use of sleep medications, and daytime dysfunction. Total score ranges between 0 and 21, and a score above 5 is considered poor sleep. Online patient surveys and quarterly phone interviews were used to track symptom-based exacerbations (at least 48 hours of increased dyspnea, sputum volume, or sputum purulence) and event-based exacerbations (a symptom-based exacerbation plus the use antibiotics or corticosteroids or health services).

At baseline, 203 patients met the PSQI threshold for poor sleep quality. During follow-up, 185 patients had at least one COPD exacerbation. Poor sleep at baseline was significantly more prevalent among patients with symptoms-based COPD exacerbations (50.3%) than among patients without symptoms-based exacerbations (37.3%; P = .01). Poor baseline sleep quality remained a significant risk factor for symptom-based exacerbations of COPD even after the researchers accounted for the effect of age, gender, body mass index, smoking, depression, angina, baseline inhaled respiratory medications, forced expiratory volume in 1 second %predicted, and modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) dyspnea scale (adjusted risk ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.18; P =.02).

Patients with at least one symptomatic exacerbation of COPD were significantly more likely to meet the threshold for poor sleep quality on the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index and have significantly higher median PSQI scores compared with patients without exacerbations (6.0 [interquartile range, 3.0 to 8.0] vs. 5.0 [2.0 to 7.0]; P = .01). Poor baseline sleep quality also was associated with event-based exacerbations and with a shorter time to symptoms-based exacerbations. Sleep disturbances, such as rising to void or experiencing respiratory issues or pain during sleep, correlated most strongly with symptoms-based exacerbations.

Several factors could explain the link between poor sleep quality and COPD exacerbations, the investigators wrote. Patients with inadequately controlled COPD have more frequent and unstable respiratory symptoms, which could disrupt sleep either directly or indirectly (secondary to medication use or anxiety, for example). Conversely, sleep disruption can impede immune function and increase systemic inflammation, which might worsen COPD control and increase exacerbation risk. Poor sleep can impair memory and cognition, “potentially fostering medication nonadherence and symptom flare-up, especially in the older COPD population.” Although the link is poorly understood, patients with COPD often have comorbid obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), which is associated with COPD exacerbations, the researchers wrote. Treating OSA is associated with improved COPD morbidity and fewer exacerbations and hospitalizations.

The researchers acknowledged limitations to their study design. “Individuals with asthma or other obstructive lung diseases could not be definitively excluded; methacholine challenges were not performed. However, analyses excluding self-reported asthma were consistent with our main results. Second, because definitions of COPD exacerbation vary among studies, comparison may be limited, but CanCOLD used a standard definition, as recommended by GOLD.”

The CanCOLD study has received funding from the Canadian Respiratory Research Network, Astra Zeneca Canada, Boehringer Ingelheim Canada, GlaxoSmithKline Canada, Novartis, Merck Nycomed, Pfizer Canada, and Theratechnologies. Dr. Shorofsky had no disclosures. Several coinvestigators reported ties to GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Almirall, and Theratechnologies.

SOURCE: Shorofsky M et al. CHEST. 2019 May 28. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2019.04.132.

SAN DIEGO – Patients on rivaroxaban had significantly higher rates of GI bleeding, compared with those taking apixaban or dabigatran, results from a large population-based study showed.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

“This may be due to the fact that rivaroxaban is administered as a single daily dose as opposed to the other two non–vitamin K anticoagulants [NOACs], which are given twice daily,” lead study author Arnar B. Ingason said at the annual Digestive Disease Week. “This may lead to a greater variance in plasma drug concentration, making these patients more susceptible to bleeding.”

Mr. Ingason, a medical student at the University of Iceland, Reykjavik, said that although several studies have compared warfarin with NOACs, it remains unclear which NOAC has the most favorable GI profile. In an effort to improve the research in this area, he and his associates performed a nationwide, population-based study during March 2014–Jan. 2018 to compare the GI bleeding risk of patients receiving rivaroxaban to that of a combined pool of patients receiving either apixaban or dabigatran. They drew from the Icelandic Medicine Registry, which contains all outpatient drug prescriptions in the country. Next, the researchers linked the personal identification numbers of patients to the Landspitali University diagnoses registry, which includes more than 90% of all patients hospitalized for GI bleeding. They used 1:1 nearest neighbor propensity score for matching and Kaplan-Meier survival estimates and Cox regression to compare rates of GI bleeding. The study outcome of interest was any clinically relevant GI bleeding.

Mr. Ingason reported that the baseline characteristics were similar between the rivaroxaban group and the apixaban/dabigatran group. They matched for several variables, including age, sex, Charlson score, the proportion being anticoagulant naive, moderate to severe renal disease, moderate to severe liver disease, any prior bleeding, and any prior thrombotic events.

During the study period, 3,473 patients received rivaroxaban, 1,901 received apixaban, and 1,086 received dabigatran. After propensity score matching, the researchers compared 2,635 patients who received rivaroxaban with 2,365 patients who received either apixaban or dabigatran. They found that patients in the rivaroxaban group had significantly higher rates of GI bleeding, compared with in the apixaban/dabigatran group (1.2 and. 0.6 events per 100 patient-years, respectively). This yielded a hazard ratio of 2.02, “which means that patients receiving rivaroxaban are twice as likely to get GI bleeding compared to patients on apixaban or dabigatran,” Mr. Ingason said. When the researchers examined the entire unmatched cohort of patients, the rivaroxaban group also had significantly higher rates of GI bleeding, compared with the apixaban/dabigatran group (1.0 and 0.6 events per 100 patient-years; HR, 1.75).

Mr. Ingason and his colleagues observed that patients in the rivaroxaban group had higher rates of GI bleeding, compared with the apixaban/dabigatran group, during the entire follow-up period. At the end of year 4, the rivaroxaban group had a 4% cumulative event rate of GI bleeding, compared with 1.8% for the apixaban/dabigatran group, a highly significant difference at P = .0057).

When a meeting attendee asked Mr. Ingason why patients taking apixaban or dabigatran were combined into one group, he said that it was done to increase the power of their study. “Our theory was that rivaroxaban was different because it is administered as a single daily dose, while the others are given twice daily,” he said. The researchers reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SAN DIEGO – Patients on rivaroxaban had significantly higher rates of GI bleeding, compared with those taking apixaban or dabigatran, results from a large population-based study showed.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

“This may be due to the fact that rivaroxaban is administered as a single daily dose as opposed to the other two non–vitamin K anticoagulants [NOACs], which are given twice daily,” lead study author Arnar B. Ingason said at the annual Digestive Disease Week. “This may lead to a greater variance in plasma drug concentration, making these patients more susceptible to bleeding.”

Mr. Ingason, a medical student at the University of Iceland, Reykjavik, said that although several studies have compared warfarin with NOACs, it remains unclear which NOAC has the most favorable GI profile. In an effort to improve the research in this area, he and his associates performed a nationwide, population-based study during March 2014–Jan. 2018 to compare the GI bleeding risk of patients receiving rivaroxaban to that of a combined pool of patients receiving either apixaban or dabigatran. They drew from the Icelandic Medicine Registry, which contains all outpatient drug prescriptions in the country. Next, the researchers linked the personal identification numbers of patients to the Landspitali University diagnoses registry, which includes more than 90% of all patients hospitalized for GI bleeding. They used 1:1 nearest neighbor propensity score for matching and Kaplan-Meier survival estimates and Cox regression to compare rates of GI bleeding. The study outcome of interest was any clinically relevant GI bleeding.

Mr. Ingason reported that the baseline characteristics were similar between the rivaroxaban group and the apixaban/dabigatran group. They matched for several variables, including age, sex, Charlson score, the proportion being anticoagulant naive, moderate to severe renal disease, moderate to severe liver disease, any prior bleeding, and any prior thrombotic events.

During the study period, 3,473 patients received rivaroxaban, 1,901 received apixaban, and 1,086 received dabigatran. After propensity score matching, the researchers compared 2,635 patients who received rivaroxaban with 2,365 patients who received either apixaban or dabigatran. They found that patients in the rivaroxaban group had significantly higher rates of GI bleeding, compared with in the apixaban/dabigatran group (1.2 and. 0.6 events per 100 patient-years, respectively). This yielded a hazard ratio of 2.02, “which means that patients receiving rivaroxaban are twice as likely to get GI bleeding compared to patients on apixaban or dabigatran,” Mr. Ingason said. When the researchers examined the entire unmatched cohort of patients, the rivaroxaban group also had significantly higher rates of GI bleeding, compared with the apixaban/dabigatran group (1.0 and 0.6 events per 100 patient-years; HR, 1.75).

Mr. Ingason and his colleagues observed that patients in the rivaroxaban group had higher rates of GI bleeding, compared with the apixaban/dabigatran group, during the entire follow-up period. At the end of year 4, the rivaroxaban group had a 4% cumulative event rate of GI bleeding, compared with 1.8% for the apixaban/dabigatran group, a highly significant difference at P = .0057).

When a meeting attendee asked Mr. Ingason why patients taking apixaban or dabigatran were combined into one group, he said that it was done to increase the power of their study. “Our theory was that rivaroxaban was different because it is administered as a single daily dose, while the others are given twice daily,” he said. The researchers reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SAN DIEGO – Patients on rivaroxaban had significantly higher rates of GI bleeding, compared with those taking apixaban or dabigatran, results from a large population-based study showed.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

“This may be due to the fact that rivaroxaban is administered as a single daily dose as opposed to the other two non–vitamin K anticoagulants [NOACs], which are given twice daily,” lead study author Arnar B. Ingason said at the annual Digestive Disease Week. “This may lead to a greater variance in plasma drug concentration, making these patients more susceptible to bleeding.”

Mr. Ingason, a medical student at the University of Iceland, Reykjavik, said that although several studies have compared warfarin with NOACs, it remains unclear which NOAC has the most favorable GI profile. In an effort to improve the research in this area, he and his associates performed a nationwide, population-based study during March 2014–Jan. 2018 to compare the GI bleeding risk of patients receiving rivaroxaban to that of a combined pool of patients receiving either apixaban or dabigatran. They drew from the Icelandic Medicine Registry, which contains all outpatient drug prescriptions in the country. Next, the researchers linked the personal identification numbers of patients to the Landspitali University diagnoses registry, which includes more than 90% of all patients hospitalized for GI bleeding. They used 1:1 nearest neighbor propensity score for matching and Kaplan-Meier survival estimates and Cox regression to compare rates of GI bleeding. The study outcome of interest was any clinically relevant GI bleeding.

Mr. Ingason reported that the baseline characteristics were similar between the rivaroxaban group and the apixaban/dabigatran group. They matched for several variables, including age, sex, Charlson score, the proportion being anticoagulant naive, moderate to severe renal disease, moderate to severe liver disease, any prior bleeding, and any prior thrombotic events.

During the study period, 3,473 patients received rivaroxaban, 1,901 received apixaban, and 1,086 received dabigatran. After propensity score matching, the researchers compared 2,635 patients who received rivaroxaban with 2,365 patients who received either apixaban or dabigatran. They found that patients in the rivaroxaban group had significantly higher rates of GI bleeding, compared with in the apixaban/dabigatran group (1.2 and. 0.6 events per 100 patient-years, respectively). This yielded a hazard ratio of 2.02, “which means that patients receiving rivaroxaban are twice as likely to get GI bleeding compared to patients on apixaban or dabigatran,” Mr. Ingason said. When the researchers examined the entire unmatched cohort of patients, the rivaroxaban group also had significantly higher rates of GI bleeding, compared with the apixaban/dabigatran group (1.0 and 0.6 events per 100 patient-years; HR, 1.75).

Mr. Ingason and his colleagues observed that patients in the rivaroxaban group had higher rates of GI bleeding, compared with the apixaban/dabigatran group, during the entire follow-up period. At the end of year 4, the rivaroxaban group had a 4% cumulative event rate of GI bleeding, compared with 1.8% for the apixaban/dabigatran group, a highly significant difference at P = .0057).

When a meeting attendee asked Mr. Ingason why patients taking apixaban or dabigatran were combined into one group, he said that it was done to increase the power of their study. “Our theory was that rivaroxaban was different because it is administered as a single daily dose, while the others are given twice daily,” he said. The researchers reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

With record-high cases of measles throughout Europe, U.S. travelers to the region should be up to date on measles immunization and other recommended vaccines, researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend in a Pediatrics special report.

CDC/Molly Kurnit, M.P.H.

More than 41,000 measles cases and 37 deaths – primarily due to low immunization coverage – were reported in the World Health Organization European Region in the first 6 months of 2018, the highest incidence since the 1990s. Typical case counts since 2010 have ranged from 5,000 to 24,000 in this region, wrote Kristina M. Angelo, DO, MPH, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Travelers’ Health Branch in Atlanta, and associates.

France, Italy and Greece – all particularly popular countries for U.S. vacationers to visit – have particularly high numbers of cases, as do Georgia, Russia, Serbia and, comprising the majority of cases, Ukraine. Italy, for example, is the 10th most popular destination worldwide for Americans, with an estimated 2.5 million American visitors in 2015.

“The large number of measles infections in the WHO European Region ... is a global concern because the European continent is the most common travel destination worldwide,” but is not perceived as a place with infectious disease risk. So travelers may not consider the need of a pretravel health consultation, including vaccination, they said.

But they need to, Dr. Angelo and associates state, and health care providers should be vigilant about checking for symptoms of measles among those who have recently returned from overseas. Given how highly contagious measles is, unvaccinated and under vaccinated travelers to Europe are susceptible to infection, as are any people they encounter back in the United States if the travelers come home sick.

Measles was eliminated in the United States in 2000, but that status is in jeopardy, CDC officials recently warned. The number of domestic measles cases has exceeded 1,000 just halfway through 2019, the highest count since 1992, nearly a decade before elimination.

“Avoiding international travel with nonimmune infants and performing early vaccination at 6 to 12 months of age per the ACIP [Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices] recommendations if travel is unavoidable are of utmost importance,” Dr. Angelo and colleagues advised. “Other at-risk populations (e.g., immunocompromised individuals and pregnant women), for whom vaccination against the measles virus is contraindicated, may consider alternative destinations or delay travel to measles-endemic destinations or areas with known, ongoing measles outbreaks.”

“Presumptive immunity to measles is defined as 1 or more of the following: birth before 1957, laboratory evidence of immunity or infection, 1 or more doses of a measles containing vaccine administered for preschool-aged children and low-risk adults, or 2 doses of measles vaccine among school-aged children and high-risk adults, including international travelers,” they explained.

In Europe, measles remains endemic in Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, France, Georgia, Germany, Italy, Romania, the Russian Federation, Serbia and the Ukraine, the authors wrote.

“As long as measles remains endemic in other countries, the United States will be challenged by measles importations,” the authors wrote. Yet at least one past study in 2017 revealed a third of U.S. travelers to Europe left the country without being fully vaccinated against measles, most often due to vaccine refusal.

“The reason one-third of travelers to Europe missed an opportunity for measles vaccination remains unclear,” the authors wrote. “It may represent a lack of concern or awareness on the part of travelers and the health care providers about acquiring measles in Europe.”

Dr. Angelo and colleagues also emphasized the importance of returning U.S. travelers seeking health care if they have symptoms of measles, including fever and a rash.

Health care providers should ask all patients about recent international travel, they stated. “If measles is suspected, health care providers should isolate travelers immediately, placing them on airborne precautions until day 4 of the rash.” Providers may consider administering immunoglobulin for unvaccinated and undervaccinated travelers and monitor them for 21 days for development of measles symptoms.

The statement was funded by the CDC. The authors reported no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Angelo KM et al. Pediatrics. 2019 Jun 17. doi: /10.1542/peds.2019-0414.

With record-high cases of measles throughout Europe, U.S. travelers to the region should be up to date on measles immunization and other recommended vaccines, researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend in a Pediatrics special report.

CDC/Molly Kurnit, M.P.H.

More than 41,000 measles cases and 37 deaths – primarily due to low immunization coverage – were reported in the World Health Organization European Region in the first 6 months of 2018, the highest incidence since the 1990s. Typical case counts since 2010 have ranged from 5,000 to 24,000 in this region, wrote Kristina M. Angelo, DO, MPH, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Travelers’ Health Branch in Atlanta, and associates.

France, Italy and Greece – all particularly popular countries for U.S. vacationers to visit – have particularly high numbers of cases, as do Georgia, Russia, Serbia and, comprising the majority of cases, Ukraine. Italy, for example, is the 10th most popular destination worldwide for Americans, with an estimated 2.5 million American visitors in 2015.

“The large number of measles infections in the WHO European Region ... is a global concern because the European continent is the most common travel destination worldwide,” but is not perceived as a place with infectious disease risk. So travelers may not consider the need of a pretravel health consultation, including vaccination, they said.

But they need to, Dr. Angelo and associates state, and health care providers should be vigilant about checking for symptoms of measles among those who have recently returned from overseas. Given how highly contagious measles is, unvaccinated and under vaccinated travelers to Europe are susceptible to infection, as are any people they encounter back in the United States if the travelers come home sick.

Measles was eliminated in the United States in 2000, but that status is in jeopardy, CDC officials recently warned. The number of domestic measles cases has exceeded 1,000 just halfway through 2019, the highest count since 1992, nearly a decade before elimination.

“Avoiding international travel with nonimmune infants and performing early vaccination at 6 to 12 months of age per the ACIP [Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices] recommendations if travel is unavoidable are of utmost importance,” Dr. Angelo and colleagues advised. “Other at-risk populations (e.g., immunocompromised individuals and pregnant women), for whom vaccination against the measles virus is contraindicated, may consider alternative destinations or delay travel to measles-endemic destinations or areas with known, ongoing measles outbreaks.”

“Presumptive immunity to measles is defined as 1 or more of the following: birth before 1957, laboratory evidence of immunity or infection, 1 or more doses of a measles containing vaccine administered for preschool-aged children and low-risk adults, or 2 doses of measles vaccine among school-aged children and high-risk adults, including international travelers,” they explained.

In Europe, measles remains endemic in Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, France, Georgia, Germany, Italy, Romania, the Russian Federation, Serbia and the Ukraine, the authors wrote.

“As long as measles remains endemic in other countries, the United States will be challenged by measles importations,” the authors wrote. Yet at least one past study in 2017 revealed a third of U.S. travelers to Europe left the country without being fully vaccinated against measles, most often due to vaccine refusal.

“The reason one-third of travelers to Europe missed an opportunity for measles vaccination remains unclear,” the authors wrote. “It may represent a lack of concern or awareness on the part of travelers and the health care providers about acquiring measles in Europe.”

Dr. Angelo and colleagues also emphasized the importance of returning U.S. travelers seeking health care if they have symptoms of measles, including fever and a rash.

Health care providers should ask all patients about recent international travel, they stated. “If measles is suspected, health care providers should isolate travelers immediately, placing them on airborne precautions until day 4 of the rash.” Providers may consider administering immunoglobulin for unvaccinated and undervaccinated travelers and monitor them for 21 days for development of measles symptoms.

The statement was funded by the CDC. The authors reported no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Angelo KM et al. Pediatrics. 2019 Jun 17. doi: /10.1542/peds.2019-0414.

With record-high cases of measles throughout Europe, U.S. travelers to the region should be up to date on measles immunization and other recommended vaccines, researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend in a Pediatrics special report.

CDC/Molly Kurnit, M.P.H.

More than 41,000 measles cases and 37 deaths – primarily due to low immunization coverage – were reported in the World Health Organization European Region in the first 6 months of 2018, the highest incidence since the 1990s. Typical case counts since 2010 have ranged from 5,000 to 24,000 in this region, wrote Kristina M. Angelo, DO, MPH, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Travelers’ Health Branch in Atlanta, and associates.

France, Italy and Greece – all particularly popular countries for U.S. vacationers to visit – have particularly high numbers of cases, as do Georgia, Russia, Serbia and, comprising the majority of cases, Ukraine. Italy, for example, is the 10th most popular destination worldwide for Americans, with an estimated 2.5 million American visitors in 2015.

“The large number of measles infections in the WHO European Region ... is a global concern because the European continent is the most common travel destination worldwide,” but is not perceived as a place with infectious disease risk. So travelers may not consider the need of a pretravel health consultation, including vaccination, they said.

But they need to, Dr. Angelo and associates state, and health care providers should be vigilant about checking for symptoms of measles among those who have recently returned from overseas. Given how highly contagious measles is, unvaccinated and under vaccinated travelers to Europe are susceptible to infection, as are any people they encounter back in the United States if the travelers come home sick.

Measles was eliminated in the United States in 2000, but that status is in jeopardy, CDC officials recently warned. The number of domestic measles cases has exceeded 1,000 just halfway through 2019, the highest count since 1992, nearly a decade before elimination.

“Avoiding international travel with nonimmune infants and performing early vaccination at 6 to 12 months of age per the ACIP [Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices] recommendations if travel is unavoidable are of utmost importance,” Dr. Angelo and colleagues advised. “Other at-risk populations (e.g., immunocompromised individuals and pregnant women), for whom vaccination against the measles virus is contraindicated, may consider alternative destinations or delay travel to measles-endemic destinations or areas with known, ongoing measles outbreaks.”

“Presumptive immunity to measles is defined as 1 or more of the following: birth before 1957, laboratory evidence of immunity or infection, 1 or more doses of a measles containing vaccine administered for preschool-aged children and low-risk adults, or 2 doses of measles vaccine among school-aged children and high-risk adults, including international travelers,” they explained.

In Europe, measles remains endemic in Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, France, Georgia, Germany, Italy, Romania, the Russian Federation, Serbia and the Ukraine, the authors wrote.

“As long as measles remains endemic in other countries, the United States will be challenged by measles importations,” the authors wrote. Yet at least one past study in 2017 revealed a third of U.S. travelers to Europe left the country without being fully vaccinated against measles, most often due to vaccine refusal.

“The reason one-third of travelers to Europe missed an opportunity for measles vaccination remains unclear,” the authors wrote. “It may represent a lack of concern or awareness on the part of travelers and the health care providers about acquiring measles in Europe.”

Dr. Angelo and colleagues also emphasized the importance of returning U.S. travelers seeking health care if they have symptoms of measles, including fever and a rash.

Health care providers should ask all patients about recent international travel, they stated. “If measles is suspected, health care providers should isolate travelers immediately, placing them on airborne precautions until day 4 of the rash.” Providers may consider administering immunoglobulin for unvaccinated and undervaccinated travelers and monitor them for 21 days for development of measles symptoms.

The statement was funded by the CDC. The authors reported no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Angelo KM et al. Pediatrics. 2019 Jun 17. doi: /10.1542/peds.2019-0414.

LJUBLJANA, SLOVENIA – Prevention or early effective treatment of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infection in infants and small children holds the promise of sharply reduced burdens of both acute otitis media (AOM) and pneumonia, Terho Heikkinen, MD, PhD, predicted in the Bill Marshall Award Lecture presented at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases (ESPID).

RSV is by far the hottest virus in the world,” declared Dr. Heikkinen, professor of pediatrics at the University of Turku (Finland).

“A lot of progress is being made with respect to RSV. This increased understanding holds great promise for new interventions,” he explained. “Lots of different types of vaccines are being developed, monoclonal antibodies, antivirals. So there is a hope that within a number of years we will have interventions against RSV.”

Today influenza is the only respiratory viral infection that’s preventable via vaccine or effectively treatable using antiviral drugs. That situation has to change, as Dr. Heikkinen demonstrated early in his career; RSV is the respiratory virus that’s most likely to invade the middle ear during AOM. It’s much more ototropic than influenza, parainfluenza, enteroviruses, or adenoviruses (N Engl J Med. 1999 Jan 28;340[4]:260-4), he noted.

The Bill Marshall Award and Lecture, ESPID’s most prestigious award, is given annually to an individual recognized as having significantly advanced the field of pediatric infectious diseases. Dr. Heikkinen was singled out for his decades of work establishing that viruses, including RSV, play a key role in AOM, which had traditionally been regarded as a bacterial infection. He and his coinvestigators demonstrated that in about two-thirds of cases, AOM is actually caused by a combination of bacteria and viruses, which explains why patients’ clinical response to antibiotic therapy for AOM often is poor. They also described the chain of events whereby viral infection of the upper airway epithelium triggers an inflammatory response in the nasopharynx, with resultant Eustachian tube dysfunction and negative middle ear pressure, which in turn encourages microbial invasion of the middle ear. Moreover, they showed that the peak incidence of AOM isn’t on day 1 after onset of upper respiratory infection symptoms, but on day 3 or 4.

“What this tells us is that, once a child has a viral respiratory infection, there is a certain window of opportunity to try to prevent the development of the complication if we have the right tools in place,” Dr. Heikkinen said.

He and his colleagues put this lesson to good use nearly a decade ago in a randomized, double-blind trial in which they showed that giving oseltamivir (Tamiflu) within 12 hours after onset of influenza symptoms in children aged 1-3 years reduced the subsequent incidence of AOM by 85%, compared with placebo (Clin Infect Dis. 2010 Oct 15;51[8]:887-94).

These observations paved the way for the ongoing intensive research effort exploring ways of preventing AOM through interventions at two different levels: by developing viral vaccines to prevent a healthy child from contracting the viral upper respiratory infection that precedes AOM and by coming up with antiviral drugs or bacterial vaccines to prevent a upper respiratory infection from evolving into AOM.

The same applies to pneumonia. Other investigators showed years ago that both respiratory viruses and bacteria were present in two-thirds of sputum samples obtained from children with community-acquired pneumonia (Clin Microbiol Infect. 2012 Mar;18[3]:300-7).

RSV is the top cause of hospitalization for acute respiratory infection – pneumonia and bronchiolitis – in infants. Worldwide, it’s estimated that RSV accounts for more than 33 million episodes of pneumonia annually, with 3.2 million hospitalizations and 118,200 deaths.

Beyond the hospital, however, Dr. Heikkinen and colleagues conducted a prospective cohort study in Turku over the course of two consecutive respiratory infection seasons in which they captured the huge burden of RSV as an outpatient illness. It hit hardest in children younger than 3 years, in whom the average annual incidence of RSV infection was 275 cases per 1,000 children. In that youngest age population, RSV upper respiratory infection was followed by AOM 58% of the time, with antibiotics prescribed in 66% of the cases of this complication of RSV illness. The mean duration of RSV illness was greatest in this young age group, at 13 days, and it was associated with parental absenteeism from work at a rate of 136 days per 100 children with RSV illness.

Moreover, while AOM occurred less frequently in children aged 3-6 years, 46% of the cases were attributed to a preceding RSV infection, which led to antibiotic treatment nearly half of the time (J Infect Dis. 2017 Jan 1;215[1]:17-23). This documentation has spurred further efforts to develop RSV vaccines and antivirals.

[email protected]

LJUBLJANA, SLOVENIA – Prevention or early effective treatment of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infection in infants and small children holds the promise of sharply reduced burdens of both acute otitis media (AOM) and pneumonia, Terho Heikkinen, MD, PhD, predicted in the Bill Marshall Award Lecture presented at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases (ESPID).

RSV is by far the hottest virus in the world,” declared Dr. Heikkinen, professor of pediatrics at the University of Turku (Finland).

“A lot of progress is being made with respect to RSV. This increased understanding holds great promise for new interventions,” he explained. “Lots of different types of vaccines are being developed, monoclonal antibodies, antivirals. So there is a hope that within a number of years we will have interventions against RSV.”

Today influenza is the only respiratory viral infection that’s preventable via vaccine or effectively treatable using antiviral drugs. That situation has to change, as Dr. Heikkinen demonstrated early in his career; RSV is the respiratory virus that’s most likely to invade the middle ear during AOM. It’s much more ototropic than influenza, parainfluenza, enteroviruses, or adenoviruses (N Engl J Med. 1999 Jan 28;340[4]:260-4), he noted.

The Bill Marshall Award and Lecture, ESPID’s most prestigious award, is given annually to an individual recognized as having significantly advanced the field of pediatric infectious diseases. Dr. Heikkinen was singled out for his decades of work establishing that viruses, including RSV, play a key role in AOM, which had traditionally been regarded as a bacterial infection. He and his coinvestigators demonstrated that in about two-thirds of cases, AOM is actually caused by a combination of bacteria and viruses, which explains why patients’ clinical response to antibiotic therapy for AOM often is poor. They also described the chain of events whereby viral infection of the upper airway epithelium triggers an inflammatory response in the nasopharynx, with resultant Eustachian tube dysfunction and negative middle ear pressure, which in turn encourages microbial invasion of the middle ear. Moreover, they showed that the peak incidence of AOM isn’t on day 1 after onset of upper respiratory infection symptoms, but on day 3 or 4.

“What this tells us is that, once a child has a viral respiratory infection, there is a certain window of opportunity to try to prevent the development of the complication if we have the right tools in place,” Dr. Heikkinen said.

He and his colleagues put this lesson to good use nearly a decade ago in a randomized, double-blind trial in which they showed that giving oseltamivir (Tamiflu) within 12 hours after onset of influenza symptoms in children aged 1-3 years reduced the subsequent incidence of AOM by 85%, compared with placebo (Clin Infect Dis. 2010 Oct 15;51[8]:887-94).

These observations paved the way for the ongoing intensive research effort exploring ways of preventing AOM through interventions at two different levels: by developing viral vaccines to prevent a healthy child from contracting the viral upper respiratory infection that precedes AOM and by coming up with antiviral drugs or bacterial vaccines to prevent a upper respiratory infection from evolving into AOM.

The same applies to pneumonia. Other investigators showed years ago that both respiratory viruses and bacteria were present in two-thirds of sputum samples obtained from children with community-acquired pneumonia (Clin Microbiol Infect. 2012 Mar;18[3]:300-7).

RSV is the top cause of hospitalization for acute respiratory infection – pneumonia and bronchiolitis – in infants. Worldwide, it’s estimated that RSV accounts for more than 33 million episodes of pneumonia annually, with 3.2 million hospitalizations and 118,200 deaths.

Beyond the hospital, however, Dr. Heikkinen and colleagues conducted a prospective cohort study in Turku over the course of two consecutive respiratory infection seasons in which they captured the huge burden of RSV as an outpatient illness. It hit hardest in children younger than 3 years, in whom the average annual incidence of RSV infection was 275 cases per 1,000 children. In that youngest age population, RSV upper respiratory infection was followed by AOM 58% of the time, with antibiotics prescribed in 66% of the cases of this complication of RSV illness. The mean duration of RSV illness was greatest in this young age group, at 13 days, and it was associated with parental absenteeism from work at a rate of 136 days per 100 children with RSV illness.

Moreover, while AOM occurred less frequently in children aged 3-6 years, 46% of the cases were attributed to a preceding RSV infection, which led to antibiotic treatment nearly half of the time (J Infect Dis. 2017 Jan 1;215[1]:17-23). This documentation has spurred further efforts to develop RSV vaccines and antivirals.

[email protected]

LJUBLJANA, SLOVENIA – Prevention or early effective treatment of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infection in infants and small children holds the promise of sharply reduced burdens of both acute otitis media (AOM) and pneumonia, Terho Heikkinen, MD, PhD, predicted in the Bill Marshall Award Lecture presented at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases (ESPID).

RSV is by far the hottest virus in the world,” declared Dr. Heikkinen, professor of pediatrics at the University of Turku (Finland).

“A lot of progress is being made with respect to RSV. This increased understanding holds great promise for new interventions,” he explained. “Lots of different types of vaccines are being developed, monoclonal antibodies, antivirals. So there is a hope that within a number of years we will have interventions against RSV.”

Today influenza is the only respiratory viral infection that’s preventable via vaccine or effectively treatable using antiviral drugs. That situation has to change, as Dr. Heikkinen demonstrated early in his career; RSV is the respiratory virus that’s most likely to invade the middle ear during AOM. It’s much more ototropic than influenza, parainfluenza, enteroviruses, or adenoviruses (N Engl J Med. 1999 Jan 28;340[4]:260-4), he noted.

The Bill Marshall Award and Lecture, ESPID’s most prestigious award, is given annually to an individual recognized as having significantly advanced the field of pediatric infectious diseases. Dr. Heikkinen was singled out for his decades of work establishing that viruses, including RSV, play a key role in AOM, which had traditionally been regarded as a bacterial infection. He and his coinvestigators demonstrated that in about two-thirds of cases, AOM is actually caused by a combination of bacteria and viruses, which explains why patients’ clinical response to antibiotic therapy for AOM often is poor. They also described the chain of events whereby viral infection of the upper airway epithelium triggers an inflammatory response in the nasopharynx, with resultant Eustachian tube dysfunction and negative middle ear pressure, which in turn encourages microbial invasion of the middle ear. Moreover, they showed that the peak incidence of AOM isn’t on day 1 after onset of upper respiratory infection symptoms, but on day 3 or 4.

“What this tells us is that, once a child has a viral respiratory infection, there is a certain window of opportunity to try to prevent the development of the complication if we have the right tools in place,” Dr. Heikkinen said.

He and his colleagues put this lesson to good use nearly a decade ago in a randomized, double-blind trial in which they showed that giving oseltamivir (Tamiflu) within 12 hours after onset of influenza symptoms in children aged 1-3 years reduced the subsequent incidence of AOM by 85%, compared with placebo (Clin Infect Dis. 2010 Oct 15;51[8]:887-94).

These observations paved the way for the ongoing intensive research effort exploring ways of preventing AOM through interventions at two different levels: by developing viral vaccines to prevent a healthy child from contracting the viral upper respiratory infection that precedes AOM and by coming up with antiviral drugs or bacterial vaccines to prevent a upper respiratory infection from evolving into AOM.

The same applies to pneumonia. Other investigators showed years ago that both respiratory viruses and bacteria were present in two-thirds of sputum samples obtained from children with community-acquired pneumonia (Clin Microbiol Infect. 2012 Mar;18[3]:300-7).

RSV is the top cause of hospitalization for acute respiratory infection – pneumonia and bronchiolitis – in infants. Worldwide, it’s estimated that RSV accounts for more than 33 million episodes of pneumonia annually, with 3.2 million hospitalizations and 118,200 deaths.

Beyond the hospital, however, Dr. Heikkinen and colleagues conducted a prospective cohort study in Turku over the course of two consecutive respiratory infection seasons in which they captured the huge burden of RSV as an outpatient illness. It hit hardest in children younger than 3 years, in whom the average annual incidence of RSV infection was 275 cases per 1,000 children. In that youngest age population, RSV upper respiratory infection was followed by AOM 58% of the time, with antibiotics prescribed in 66% of the cases of this complication of RSV illness. The mean duration of RSV illness was greatest in this young age group, at 13 days, and it was associated with parental absenteeism from work at a rate of 136 days per 100 children with RSV illness.

Moreover, while AOM occurred less frequently in children aged 3-6 years, 46% of the cases were attributed to a preceding RSV infection, which led to antibiotic treatment nearly half of the time (J Infect Dis. 2017 Jan 1;215[1]:17-23). This documentation has spurred further efforts to develop RSV vaccines and antivirals.

[email protected]

A large Kaiser Permanente study paints a nuanced picture of the acellular pertussis vaccine, with more cases occurring in fully vaccinated children, but the highest risk of disease occurring among the under- and unvaccinated.

Sean Locke/iStockphoto

Among nearly half a million children, the unvaccinated were 13 times more likely to develop pertussis than fully vaccinated children, Ousseny Zerbo, PhD, of Kaiser Permanente Northern California in Oakland and colleagues wrote in Pediatrics. But 82% of cases occurred in fully vaccinated children and just 5% in undervaccinated children – and rates increased in both groups the farther they were in time from the last vaccination.

“Within our study population, greater than 80% of pertussis cases occurred among age-appropriately vaccinated children,” the team wrote. “Children who were further away from their last DTaP dose were at increased risk of pertussis, even after controlling for undervaccination. Our results suggest that, in this population, possibly in conjunction with other factors not addressed in this study, suboptimal vaccine efficacy and waning [immunity] played a major role in recent pertussis epidemics.”

The results are consistent with several prior studies, including one finding that the odds of the disease increased by 33% for every additional year after the third or fifth DTaP dose (Pediatrics. 2015;135[2]:331-43).

The current study comprised 469,982 children aged between 3 months and 11 years, who were followed for a mean of 4.6 years. Over the entire study period, there were 738 lab-confirmed pertussis cases. Most of these (515; 70%) occurred in fully vaccinated children. Another 99 (13%) occurred in unvaccinated children, 36 (5%) in undervaccinated children, and 88 (12%) in fully vaccinated plus one dose.

In a multivariate analysis, the risk of pertussis was 13 times higher among the unvaccinated (adjusted hazard ratio, 13) and almost 2 times higher among the undervaccinated (aHR, 1.9), compared with fully vaccinated children. Those who had been fully vaccinated and received a booster had the lowest risk, about half that of fully vaccinated children (aHR, 0.48).

Risk varied according to age, but also was significantly higher among unvaccinated children at each time point. Risk ranged from 4 times higher among those aged 3-5 months to 23 times higher among those aged 19-84 months. Undervaccinated children aged 5-7 months and 19-84 months also were at significantly increased risk for pertussis, compared with fully vaccinated children. Children who were fully vaccinated plus one dose had a significantly reduced risk at 7-19 months and at 19-84 months, compared with the fully vaccinated reference group.

“Across all follow-up and all age groups, VE [vaccine effectiveness] was 86% ... for undervaccinated children, compared with unvaccinated children,” Dr. Zerbo and associates wrote. “VE was even higher for fully vaccinated children [93%] and for those who were fully vaccinated plus one dose [96%].”

But VE waned as time progressed farther from the last DTaP dose. The multivariate model found more than a 100% increased risk for those whose last DTaP was at least 3 years past, compared with less than 1 year past (aHR, 2.58).

The model also found time-bound risk increases among fully vaccinated children, with a more than 300% increased risk among those at least 6 years out from the last DTaP dose, compared with 3 years out (aHR, 4.66).

The results indicate that other factors besides adherence to the recommended vaccine schedule may be at work in recent pertussis outbreaks.

“Although waning immunity is clearly an important factor driving pertussis epidemics in recent years, other factors that we did not evaluate in this study might also contribute to pertussis epidemics individually or in synergy,” Dr. Zerbo and associates wrote. “Results from studies in baboons suggest that the acellular pertussis vaccines are unable to prevent colonization, carriage, and transmission. If this is also true for humans, this could contribute to pertussis epidemics. The causes of recent pertussis epidemics are complex, and we were only able to address some aspects in our study.”

The study was funded by Kaiser Permanente Northern California, the National Institutes of Health, and in part by a National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases grant. One coauthor reported receiving research grant support from Sanofi Pasteur, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, MedImmune, Pfizer, and Dynavax for unrelated studies; the other authors reported no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Zerbo O et al. Pediatrics. 2019 Jun 10. doi: 10.1542/peds.2018-3466.

A large Kaiser Permanente study paints a nuanced picture of the acellular pertussis vaccine, with more cases occurring in fully vaccinated children, but the highest risk of disease occurring among the under- and unvaccinated.

Sean Locke/iStockphoto

Among nearly half a million children, the unvaccinated were 13 times more likely to develop pertussis than fully vaccinated children, Ousseny Zerbo, PhD, of Kaiser Permanente Northern California in Oakland and colleagues wrote in Pediatrics. But 82% of cases occurred in fully vaccinated children and just 5% in undervaccinated children – and rates increased in both groups the farther they were in time from the last vaccination.

“Within our study population, greater than 80% of pertussis cases occurred among age-appropriately vaccinated children,” the team wrote. “Children who were further away from their last DTaP dose were at increased risk of pertussis, even after controlling for undervaccination. Our results suggest that, in this population, possibly in conjunction with other factors not addressed in this study, suboptimal vaccine efficacy and waning [immunity] played a major role in recent pertussis epidemics.”

The results are consistent with several prior studies, including one finding that the odds of the disease increased by 33% for every additional year after the third or fifth DTaP dose (Pediatrics. 2015;135[2]:331-43).

The current study comprised 469,982 children aged between 3 months and 11 years, who were followed for a mean of 4.6 years. Over the entire study period, there were 738 lab-confirmed pertussis cases. Most of these (515; 70%) occurred in fully vaccinated children. Another 99 (13%) occurred in unvaccinated children, 36 (5%) in undervaccinated children, and 88 (12%) in fully vaccinated plus one dose.

In a multivariate analysis, the risk of pertussis was 13 times higher among the unvaccinated (adjusted hazard ratio, 13) and almost 2 times higher among the undervaccinated (aHR, 1.9), compared with fully vaccinated children. Those who had been fully vaccinated and received a booster had the lowest risk, about half that of fully vaccinated children (aHR, 0.48).

Risk varied according to age, but also was significantly higher among unvaccinated children at each time point. Risk ranged from 4 times higher among those aged 3-5 months to 23 times higher among those aged 19-84 months. Undervaccinated children aged 5-7 months and 19-84 months also were at significantly increased risk for pertussis, compared with fully vaccinated children. Children who were fully vaccinated plus one dose had a significantly reduced risk at 7-19 months and at 19-84 months, compared with the fully vaccinated reference group.

“Across all follow-up and all age groups, VE [vaccine effectiveness] was 86% ... for undervaccinated children, compared with unvaccinated children,” Dr. Zerbo and associates wrote. “VE was even higher for fully vaccinated children [93%] and for those who were fully vaccinated plus one dose [96%].”

But VE waned as time progressed farther from the last DTaP dose. The multivariate model found more than a 100% increased risk for those whose last DTaP was at least 3 years past, compared with less than 1 year past (aHR, 2.58).

The model also found time-bound risk increases among fully vaccinated children, with a more than 300% increased risk among those at least 6 years out from the last DTaP dose, compared with 3 years out (aHR, 4.66).

The results indicate that other factors besides adherence to the recommended vaccine schedule may be at work in recent pertussis outbreaks.

“Although waning immunity is clearly an important factor driving pertussis epidemics in recent years, other factors that we did not evaluate in this study might also contribute to pertussis epidemics individually or in synergy,” Dr. Zerbo and associates wrote. “Results from studies in baboons suggest that the acellular pertussis vaccines are unable to prevent colonization, carriage, and transmission. If this is also true for humans, this could contribute to pertussis epidemics. The causes of recent pertussis epidemics are complex, and we were only able to address some aspects in our study.”

The study was funded by Kaiser Permanente Northern California, the National Institutes of Health, and in part by a National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases grant. One coauthor reported receiving research grant support from Sanofi Pasteur, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, MedImmune, Pfizer, and Dynavax for unrelated studies; the other authors reported no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Zerbo O et al. Pediatrics. 2019 Jun 10. doi: 10.1542/peds.2018-3466.

A large Kaiser Permanente study paints a nuanced picture of the acellular pertussis vaccine, with more cases occurring in fully vaccinated children, but the highest risk of disease occurring among the under- and unvaccinated.

Sean Locke/iStockphoto

Among nearly half a million children, the unvaccinated were 13 times more likely to develop pertussis than fully vaccinated children, Ousseny Zerbo, PhD, of Kaiser Permanente Northern California in Oakland and colleagues wrote in Pediatrics. But 82% of cases occurred in fully vaccinated children and just 5% in undervaccinated children – and rates increased in both groups the farther they were in time from the last vaccination.

“Within our study population, greater than 80% of pertussis cases occurred among age-appropriately vaccinated children,” the team wrote. “Children who were further away from their last DTaP dose were at increased risk of pertussis, even after controlling for undervaccination. Our results suggest that, in this population, possibly in conjunction with other factors not addressed in this study, suboptimal vaccine efficacy and waning [immunity] played a major role in recent pertussis epidemics.”

The results are consistent with several prior studies, including one finding that the odds of the disease increased by 33% for every additional year after the third or fifth DTaP dose (Pediatrics. 2015;135[2]:331-43).

The current study comprised 469,982 children aged between 3 months and 11 years, who were followed for a mean of 4.6 years. Over the entire study period, there were 738 lab-confirmed pertussis cases. Most of these (515; 70%) occurred in fully vaccinated children. Another 99 (13%) occurred in unvaccinated children, 36 (5%) in undervaccinated children, and 88 (12%) in fully vaccinated plus one dose.

In a multivariate analysis, the risk of pertussis was 13 times higher among the unvaccinated (adjusted hazard ratio, 13) and almost 2 times higher among the undervaccinated (aHR, 1.9), compared with fully vaccinated children. Those who had been fully vaccinated and received a booster had the lowest risk, about half that of fully vaccinated children (aHR, 0.48).

Risk varied according to age, but also was significantly higher among unvaccinated children at each time point. Risk ranged from 4 times higher among those aged 3-5 months to 23 times higher among those aged 19-84 months. Undervaccinated children aged 5-7 months and 19-84 months also were at significantly increased risk for pertussis, compared with fully vaccinated children. Children who were fully vaccinated plus one dose had a significantly reduced risk at 7-19 months and at 19-84 months, compared with the fully vaccinated reference group.

“Across all follow-up and all age groups, VE [vaccine effectiveness] was 86% ... for undervaccinated children, compared with unvaccinated children,” Dr. Zerbo and associates wrote. “VE was even higher for fully vaccinated children [93%] and for those who were fully vaccinated plus one dose [96%].”

But VE waned as time progressed farther from the last DTaP dose. The multivariate model found more than a 100% increased risk for those whose last DTaP was at least 3 years past, compared with less than 1 year past (aHR, 2.58).

The model also found time-bound risk increases among fully vaccinated children, with a more than 300% increased risk among those at least 6 years out from the last DTaP dose, compared with 3 years out (aHR, 4.66).

The results indicate that other factors besides adherence to the recommended vaccine schedule may be at work in recent pertussis outbreaks.

“Although waning immunity is clearly an important factor driving pertussis epidemics in recent years, other factors that we did not evaluate in this study might also contribute to pertussis epidemics individually or in synergy,” Dr. Zerbo and associates wrote. “Results from studies in baboons suggest that the acellular pertussis vaccines are unable to prevent colonization, carriage, and transmission. If this is also true for humans, this could contribute to pertussis epidemics. The causes of recent pertussis epidemics are complex, and we were only able to address some aspects in our study.”

The study was funded by Kaiser Permanente Northern California, the National Institutes of Health, and in part by a National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases grant. One coauthor reported receiving research grant support from Sanofi Pasteur, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, MedImmune, Pfizer, and Dynavax for unrelated studies; the other authors reported no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Zerbo O et al. Pediatrics. 2019 Jun 10. doi: 10.1542/peds.2018-3466.

Measles cases in the United States have topped 1,000 for the first time since 1992, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The 41 new cases reported for the week ending June 6 bring the total for the year to 1,022, the CDC reported June 10, and that is more than any year since 1992, when there were 2,237 cases.

Idaho and Virginia reported their first cases of 2019, which makes a total of 28 states with measles cases this year. The Idaho case was reported in Latah County and is the state’s first since 2001. In Virginia, health officials are investigating possible contacts with an infected individual at Dulles International Airport and two other locations on June 2 and 4.

Outbreaks in Georgia, Maryland, and Michigan have ended, while seven others continue in California (Butte, Los Angeles, and Sacramento Counties), New York (Rockland County and New York City), Pennsylvania, and Washington, the CDC said. New York City has the largest outbreak this year with 509 cases through June 3, most of them occurring in Brooklyn.

[email protected]

Measles cases in the United States have topped 1,000 for the first time since 1992, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The 41 new cases reported for the week ending June 6 bring the total for the year to 1,022, the CDC reported June 10, and that is more than any year since 1992, when there were 2,237 cases.

Idaho and Virginia reported their first cases of 2019, which makes a total of 28 states with measles cases this year. The Idaho case was reported in Latah County and is the state’s first since 2001. In Virginia, health officials are investigating possible contacts with an infected individual at Dulles International Airport and two other locations on June 2 and 4.

Outbreaks in Georgia, Maryland, and Michigan have ended, while seven others continue in California (Butte, Los Angeles, and Sacramento Counties), New York (Rockland County and New York City), Pennsylvania, and Washington, the CDC said. New York City has the largest outbreak this year with 509 cases through June 3, most of them occurring in Brooklyn.

[email protected]

Measles cases in the United States have topped 1,000 for the first time since 1992, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The 41 new cases reported for the week ending June 6 bring the total for the year to 1,022, the CDC reported June 10, and that is more than any year since 1992, when there were 2,237 cases.

Idaho and Virginia reported their first cases of 2019, which makes a total of 28 states with measles cases this year. The Idaho case was reported in Latah County and is the state’s first since 2001. In Virginia, health officials are investigating possible contacts with an infected individual at Dulles International Airport and two other locations on June 2 and 4.

Outbreaks in Georgia, Maryland, and Michigan have ended, while seven others continue in California (Butte, Los Angeles, and Sacramento Counties), New York (Rockland County and New York City), Pennsylvania, and Washington, the CDC said. New York City has the largest outbreak this year with 509 cases through June 3, most of them occurring in Brooklyn.

[email protected]

A needs- and barriers-based intervention that addressed psychosocial, physical, cognitive, and environmental barriers to self-management of asthma for older adults was successful in improving asthma outcomes and management, a recent trial has shown.

Medioimages/Photodisc/ThinkStock

“This study demonstrates the value of patient centeredness and care coaching in supporting older adults with asthma and for ongoing efforts to engage patients in care delivery design and personalization,” Alex D. Federman, MD, of the division of general internal medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and colleagues wrote in their study, which was published in JAMA Internal Medicine. “It also highlights the challenges of engaging vulnerable populations in self-management support, including modest retention rates and reduced impact over time despite repeated encounters designed to sustain its effects.”

The researchers said older adults often have difficulty with self-management tasks like inhaler technique and use of inhaled corticosteroids, which can be caused by various psychosocial, physical, cognitive, or environmental barriers. However, an attempt at creating self-management tools around specific problems, rather than generalized training, has not been traditionally attempted, they noted.

For the SAMBA trial, Dr. Federman and colleagues enrolled 391 patients who were randomized to receive a home-based intervention, clinic-based intervention, or usual care, where an asthma care coach would identify the barriers to asthma control, train the patient in areas of improvement, and provide reinforcement when necessary. Patients were at least age 60 years (15.1% men) with uncontrolled asthma in New York City and were enrolled between February 2014 and December 2017. Researchers used the Mini Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire, Asthma Control Test, metered dose inhaler technique, Medication Adherence Rating Scale, and visits to the emergency room to assess outcomes between interventions and usual care, and between home and clinic care. The data was analyzed using the ‘difference in differences’ statistical technique to compare the change differential between the groups.

They found significantly better asthma control scores between the intervention group and the control groups at 3 months (difference-in-differences, 1.2; 95% confidence interval, 0.2-2.2; P = .02), 6 months (D-in-Ds, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.0-2.1; P = .049), and 12 months (D-inDs, 0.6; 95% CI, −0.5 to 1.8; P = .28). Quality of life was significantly improved in the intervention group, compared with control patients (overall effect, chi-squared = 10.5; with 4 degrees of freedom; P = .01), as was adherence to medication (overall effect, chi-squared = 9.5, with 4 degrees of freedom; P = .049), and inhaler technique as measured by correctly completed steps at 12 months (75% vs. 58%). Visits to the emergency room were also lower in the intervention group, compared with the control group (6.2% vs. 12.7%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.6-0.99; both P = .03). The researchers noted there were no significant differences between home care and clinic care.

Potential limitations in the study included a lower-than-planned statistical power, 70% retention in the intervention arms, low generalizability of the findings, and lack of blinding on the part of research assistants as well as some improvement in asthma control and outcomes in the control group.

This study was funded in part by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Coauthors Nandini Shroff reported grants from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute; Michael S. Wolf reported grants from Eli Lilly; and Juan P. Wisnivesky reported personal fees from Sanofi, Quintiles, and Banook, and grants from Sanofi and Quorum. The other authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Federman AD et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2019; doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.1201.

A needs- and barriers-based intervention that addressed psychosocial, physical, cognitive, and environmental barriers to self-management of asthma for older adults was successful in improving asthma outcomes and management, a recent trial has shown.

Medioimages/Photodisc/ThinkStock

“This study demonstrates the value of patient centeredness and care coaching in supporting older adults with asthma and for ongoing efforts to engage patients in care delivery design and personalization,” Alex D. Federman, MD, of the division of general internal medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and colleagues wrote in their study, which was published in JAMA Internal Medicine. “It also highlights the challenges of engaging vulnerable populations in self-management support, including modest retention rates and reduced impact over time despite repeated encounters designed to sustain its effects.”

The researchers said older adults often have difficulty with self-management tasks like inhaler technique and use of inhaled corticosteroids, which can be caused by various psychosocial, physical, cognitive, or environmental barriers. However, an attempt at creating self-management tools around specific problems, rather than generalized training, has not been traditionally attempted, they noted.

For the SAMBA trial, Dr. Federman and colleagues enrolled 391 patients who were randomized to receive a home-based intervention, clinic-based intervention, or usual care, where an asthma care coach would identify the barriers to asthma control, train the patient in areas of improvement, and provide reinforcement when necessary. Patients were at least age 60 years (15.1% men) with uncontrolled asthma in New York City and were enrolled between February 2014 and December 2017. Researchers used the Mini Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire, Asthma Control Test, metered dose inhaler technique, Medication Adherence Rating Scale, and visits to the emergency room to assess outcomes between interventions and usual care, and between home and clinic care. The data was analyzed using the ‘difference in differences’ statistical technique to compare the change differential between the groups.

They found significantly better asthma control scores between the intervention group and the control groups at 3 months (difference-in-differences, 1.2; 95% confidence interval, 0.2-2.2; P = .02), 6 months (D-in-Ds, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.0-2.1; P = .049), and 12 months (D-inDs, 0.6; 95% CI, −0.5 to 1.8; P = .28). Quality of life was significantly improved in the intervention group, compared with control patients (overall effect, chi-squared = 10.5; with 4 degrees of freedom; P = .01), as was adherence to medication (overall effect, chi-squared = 9.5, with 4 degrees of freedom; P = .049), and inhaler technique as measured by correctly completed steps at 12 months (75% vs. 58%). Visits to the emergency room were also lower in the intervention group, compared with the control group (6.2% vs. 12.7%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.6-0.99; both P = .03). The researchers noted there were no significant differences between home care and clinic care.

Potential limitations in the study included a lower-than-planned statistical power, 70% retention in the intervention arms, low generalizability of the findings, and lack of blinding on the part of research assistants as well as some improvement in asthma control and outcomes in the control group.

This study was funded in part by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Coauthors Nandini Shroff reported grants from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute; Michael S. Wolf reported grants from Eli Lilly; and Juan P. Wisnivesky reported personal fees from Sanofi, Quintiles, and Banook, and grants from Sanofi and Quorum. The other authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Federman AD et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2019; doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.1201.

A needs- and barriers-based intervention that addressed psychosocial, physical, cognitive, and environmental barriers to self-management of asthma for older adults was successful in improving asthma outcomes and management, a recent trial has shown.

Medioimages/Photodisc/ThinkStock

“This study demonstrates the value of patient centeredness and care coaching in supporting older adults with asthma and for ongoing efforts to engage patients in care delivery design and personalization,” Alex D. Federman, MD, of the division of general internal medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and colleagues wrote in their study, which was published in JAMA Internal Medicine. “It also highlights the challenges of engaging vulnerable populations in self-management support, including modest retention rates and reduced impact over time despite repeated encounters designed to sustain its effects.”

The researchers said older adults often have difficulty with self-management tasks like inhaler technique and use of inhaled corticosteroids, which can be caused by various psychosocial, physical, cognitive, or environmental barriers. However, an attempt at creating self-management tools around specific problems, rather than generalized training, has not been traditionally attempted, they noted.

For the SAMBA trial, Dr. Federman and colleagues enrolled 391 patients who were randomized to receive a home-based intervention, clinic-based intervention, or usual care, where an asthma care coach would identify the barriers to asthma control, train the patient in areas of improvement, and provide reinforcement when necessary. Patients were at least age 60 years (15.1% men) with uncontrolled asthma in New York City and were enrolled between February 2014 and December 2017. Researchers used the Mini Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire, Asthma Control Test, metered dose inhaler technique, Medication Adherence Rating Scale, and visits to the emergency room to assess outcomes between interventions and usual care, and between home and clinic care. The data was analyzed using the ‘difference in differences’ statistical technique to compare the change differential between the groups.

They found significantly better asthma control scores between the intervention group and the control groups at 3 months (difference-in-differences, 1.2; 95% confidence interval, 0.2-2.2; P = .02), 6 months (D-in-Ds, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.0-2.1; P = .049), and 12 months (D-inDs, 0.6; 95% CI, −0.5 to 1.8; P = .28). Quality of life was significantly improved in the intervention group, compared with control patients (overall effect, chi-squared = 10.5; with 4 degrees of freedom; P = .01), as was adherence to medication (overall effect, chi-squared = 9.5, with 4 degrees of freedom; P = .049), and inhaler technique as measured by correctly completed steps at 12 months (75% vs. 58%). Visits to the emergency room were also lower in the intervention group, compared with the control group (6.2% vs. 12.7%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.6-0.99; both P = .03). The researchers noted there were no significant differences between home care and clinic care.

Potential limitations in the study included a lower-than-planned statistical power, 70% retention in the intervention arms, low generalizability of the findings, and lack of blinding on the part of research assistants as well as some improvement in asthma control and outcomes in the control group.

This study was funded in part by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Coauthors Nandini Shroff reported grants from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute; Michael S. Wolf reported grants from Eli Lilly; and Juan P. Wisnivesky reported personal fees from Sanofi, Quintiles, and Banook, and grants from Sanofi and Quorum. The other authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Federman AD et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2019; doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.1201.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

Penny E is a 48-year-old woman with a history of asthma who presents with wheezing and respiratory distress. There are no clinical signs of deep vein thrombosis or hemoptysis. Pulmonary embolism (PE) is not your most likely diagnosis, but it is included in the differential, so you order a D-dimer concentration and it returns at 700 ng/mL. Should you order computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) to evaluate for PE?

PE is the third most common type of cardiovascular disease after coronary artery disease and stroke, with an estimated incidence in the United States of 1-2 people/1000 population and a 30-day mortality rate between 10% and 30%.² Improved adherence to a clinical decision support system has been shown to significantly decrease the number of diagnostic tests performed and the number of diagnostic failures.³

The use of a diagnostic algorithm that includes the Wells’ criteria and a D-dimer concentration can exclude PE without CTPA in 20% to 30% of patients.⁴ However, due to the complexity of the algorithm and insufficient time in busy emergency departments, adherence to recommended diagnostic strategies is variable.⁵

Further, it is common for a D-dimer test to be obtained before clinical assessment by a provider.⁶ A fixed cutoff D-dimer concentration of 500 ng/mL is commonly used despite an absolute reduction of 11.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 10.5-12.9) in the need for CTPA using an age-adjusted D-dimer concentration threshold (age × 10 ng/mL for patients > 50 years).⁷

Three items of the original Wells’ criteria—clinical signs of deep vein thrombosis, hemoptysis, and whether PE is the most likely diagnosis—are the most predictive for PE.⁸ The development of a more efficient algorithm based on these 3 items that uses differential D-dimer concentration thresholds could retain sensitivity and decrease unnecessary CTPAs. Decreasing CTPAs would avoid contrast-induced nephropathy and decrease cancers associated with radiation exposure.^9-11 Significant cost savings could also be achieved, as the estimated cost of one CTPA is $648, while a D-dimer concentration is estimated to cost $14.¹²

STUDY SUMMARY

Simplified algorithm diagnoses PE with fewer CTPAs

The YEARS study was a prospective cohort study conducted in 12 hospitals in the Netherlands that included 3616 patients with clinically suspected PE.¹ After excluding 151 patients who met exclusion criteria (life expectancy < 3 months, ongoing anticoagulation treatment, pregnancy, and contraindication to CTPA), investigators managed 3465 study patients according to the YEARS algorithm. This algorithm called for obtaining a D-dimer concentration in all patients and assessment using the YEARS clinical decision rule, consisting of 3 items assessed by an attending physician: clinical signs of deep vein thrombosis, hemoptysis, and whether PE was the most likely diagnosis. PE was considered excluded if a patient had no positive YEARS items and a D-dimer concentration < 1000 ng/mL or if the patient had one or more YEARS items and a D-dimer concentration < 500 ng/mL. The primary outcome was venous thromboembolism (VTE) events at 3 months’ follow-up once PE was excluded. The secondary outcome was the number of required CTPAs using the YEARS decision rule compared with the number that would have been required if the Wells’ diagnostic algorithm had been implemented.

Of the 1743 patients who had none of the 3 YEARS items, 1320 had a D-dimer concentration below the 1000 ng/mL threshold. Fifty-five of the 423 who had a D-dimer ≥ 1000 ng/mL had confirmed PE by CTPA. In the 1722 patients who had at least 1 YEARS item, 1391 had a D-dimer concentration ≥ 500 ng/mL threshold; 401 of those 1391 had PE confirmed by CTPA.

Continue to: Eighteen of the 2964 patients...

Eighteen of the 2964 patients who had PE ruled out by the YEARS algorithm at baseline were found to have symptomatic VTE during the follow-up period (0.61%; 95% CI, 0.36-0.96), with 6 patients (0.20%; 95% CI, 0.07-0.44) sustaining a fatal PE. The 3-month incidence of VTE in patients who did not have CTPA was 0.43% (95% CI, 0.17-0.88), which is similar to the 0.34% (0.036-0.96) reported in a previous meta-analysis of the Wells’ rule algorithm.¹³ Overall, fatal PE occurred in 0.3% (95% CI, 0.12-0.78) of patients in the YEARS cohort vs 0.6% (0.4-1.1) in a meta-analysis of studies using standard algorithms.¹⁴

The new diagnostic algorithm reduced the use of CT pulmonary angiography by 14% and produced a cost savings of $309,096.

Using an intention-to-diagnose analysis, 1611 (46%) patients did not have a CTPA indicated by the YEARS algorithm compared with 1174 (34%) using the Wells’ algorithm, for an absolute difference of 13% (95% CI, 10-15) and estimated cost savings of $283,176 in this sample. The per-protocol analysis also had a decrease of CTPA examinations in favor of the YEARS algorithm, ruling out 1651 (48%) patients—a decrease of 14% (95% CI, 12-16) and an estimated savings of $309,096.

WHAT’S NEW

High-level evidence says 14% fewer CTPAs

The YEARS study provides a high level of evidence that a new, simple diagnostic algorithm can reliably and efficiently exclude PE and decrease the need for CTPA by 14% (absolute difference; 95% CI, 12-16) when compared with using the Wells’ rule and fixed D-dimer threshold of < 500 ng/mL.

CAVEATS

No adjusting D-dimer for age

The YEARS criteria does not consider an age-adjusted D-dimer threshold, which has been shown to further decrease CTPA use.⁶ This does not preclude the use of YEARS criteria; applying age-adjusted D-dimer thresholds would have led to an absolute reduction of 8.7% (95% CI, 6.4-11) in CTPAs.⁷

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

None to speak of

We see no challenges to the implementation of this recommendation.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center For Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center For Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

Penny E is a 48-year-old woman with a history of asthma who presents with wheezing and respiratory distress. There are no clinical signs of deep vein thrombosis or hemoptysis. Pulmonary embolism (PE) is not your most likely diagnosis, but it is included in the differential, so you order a D-dimer concentration and it returns at 700 ng/mL. Should you order computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) to evaluate for PE?

PE is the third most common type of cardiovascular disease after coronary artery disease and stroke, with an estimated incidence in the United States of 1-2 people/1000 population and a 30-day mortality rate between 10% and 30%.² Improved adherence to a clinical decision support system has been shown to significantly decrease the number of diagnostic tests performed and the number of diagnostic failures.³

The use of a diagnostic algorithm that includes the Wells’ criteria and a D-dimer concentration can exclude PE without CTPA in 20% to 30% of patients.⁴ However, due to the complexity of the algorithm and insufficient time in busy emergency departments, adherence to recommended diagnostic strategies is variable.⁵

Further, it is common for a D-dimer test to be obtained before clinical assessment by a provider.⁶ A fixed cutoff D-dimer concentration of 500 ng/mL is commonly used despite an absolute reduction of 11.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 10.5-12.9) in the need for CTPA using an age-adjusted D-dimer concentration threshold (age × 10 ng/mL for patients > 50 years).⁷

Three items of the original Wells’ criteria—clinical signs of deep vein thrombosis, hemoptysis, and whether PE is the most likely diagnosis—are the most predictive for PE.⁸ The development of a more efficient algorithm based on these 3 items that uses differential D-dimer concentration thresholds could retain sensitivity and decrease unnecessary CTPAs. Decreasing CTPAs would avoid contrast-induced nephropathy and decrease cancers associated with radiation exposure.^9-11 Significant cost savings could also be achieved, as the estimated cost of one CTPA is $648, while a D-dimer concentration is estimated to cost $14.¹²

STUDY SUMMARY

Simplified algorithm diagnoses PE with fewer CTPAs

The YEARS study was a prospective cohort study conducted in 12 hospitals in the Netherlands that included 3616 patients with clinically suspected PE.¹ After excluding 151 patients who met exclusion criteria (life expectancy < 3 months, ongoing anticoagulation treatment, pregnancy, and contraindication to CTPA), investigators managed 3465 study patients according to the YEARS algorithm. This algorithm called for obtaining a D-dimer concentration in all patients and assessment using the YEARS clinical decision rule, consisting of 3 items assessed by an attending physician: clinical signs of deep vein thrombosis, hemoptysis, and whether PE was the most likely diagnosis. PE was considered excluded if a patient had no positive YEARS items and a D-dimer concentration < 1000 ng/mL or if the patient had one or more YEARS items and a D-dimer concentration < 500 ng/mL. The primary outcome was venous thromboembolism (VTE) events at 3 months’ follow-up once PE was excluded. The secondary outcome was the number of required CTPAs using the YEARS decision rule compared with the number that would have been required if the Wells’ diagnostic algorithm had been implemented.

Of the 1743 patients who had none of the 3 YEARS items, 1320 had a D-dimer concentration below the 1000 ng/mL threshold. Fifty-five of the 423 who had a D-dimer ≥ 1000 ng/mL had confirmed PE by CTPA. In the 1722 patients who had at least 1 YEARS item, 1391 had a D-dimer concentration ≥ 500 ng/mL threshold; 401 of those 1391 had PE confirmed by CTPA.

Continue to: Eighteen of the 2964 patients...

Eighteen of the 2964 patients who had PE ruled out by the YEARS algorithm at baseline were found to have symptomatic VTE during the follow-up period (0.61%; 95% CI, 0.36-0.96), with 6 patients (0.20%; 95% CI, 0.07-0.44) sustaining a fatal PE. The 3-month incidence of VTE in patients who did not have CTPA was 0.43% (95% CI, 0.17-0.88), which is similar to the 0.34% (0.036-0.96) reported in a previous meta-analysis of the Wells’ rule algorithm.¹³ Overall, fatal PE occurred in 0.3% (95% CI, 0.12-0.78) of patients in the YEARS cohort vs 0.6% (0.4-1.1) in a meta-analysis of studies using standard algorithms.¹⁴

The new diagnostic algorithm reduced the use of CT pulmonary angiography by 14% and produced a cost savings of $309,096.

Using an intention-to-diagnose analysis, 1611 (46%) patients did not have a CTPA indicated by the YEARS algorithm compared with 1174 (34%) using the Wells’ algorithm, for an absolute difference of 13% (95% CI, 10-15) and estimated cost savings of $283,176 in this sample. The per-protocol analysis also had a decrease of CTPA examinations in favor of the YEARS algorithm, ruling out 1651 (48%) patients—a decrease of 14% (95% CI, 12-16) and an estimated savings of $309,096.

WHAT’S NEW

High-level evidence says 14% fewer CTPAs

The YEARS study provides a high level of evidence that a new, simple diagnostic algorithm can reliably and efficiently exclude PE and decrease the need for CTPA by 14% (absolute difference; 95% CI, 12-16) when compared with using the Wells’ rule and fixed D-dimer threshold of < 500 ng/mL.

CAVEATS

No adjusting D-dimer for age

The YEARS criteria does not consider an age-adjusted D-dimer threshold, which has been shown to further decrease CTPA use.⁶ This does not preclude the use of YEARS criteria; applying age-adjusted D-dimer thresholds would have led to an absolute reduction of 8.7% (95% CI, 6.4-11) in CTPAs.⁷

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

None to speak of

We see no challenges to the implementation of this recommendation.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center For Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center For Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

Penny E is a 48-year-old woman with a history of asthma who presents with wheezing and respiratory distress. There are no clinical signs of deep vein thrombosis or hemoptysis. Pulmonary embolism (PE) is not your most likely diagnosis, but it is included in the differential, so you order a D-dimer concentration and it returns at 700 ng/mL. Should you order computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) to evaluate for PE?

PE is the third most common type of cardiovascular disease after coronary artery disease and stroke, with an estimated incidence in the United States of 1-2 people/1000 population and a 30-day mortality rate between 10% and 30%.² Improved adherence to a clinical decision support system has been shown to significantly decrease the number of diagnostic tests performed and the number of diagnostic failures.³

The use of a diagnostic algorithm that includes the Wells’ criteria and a D-dimer concentration can exclude PE without CTPA in 20% to 30% of patients.⁴ However, due to the complexity of the algorithm and insufficient time in busy emergency departments, adherence to recommended diagnostic strategies is variable.⁵

Further, it is common for a D-dimer test to be obtained before clinical assessment by a provider.⁶ A fixed cutoff D-dimer concentration of 500 ng/mL is commonly used despite an absolute reduction of 11.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 10.5-12.9) in the need for CTPA using an age-adjusted D-dimer concentration threshold (age × 10 ng/mL for patients > 50 years).⁷

Three items of the original Wells’ criteria—clinical signs of deep vein thrombosis, hemoptysis, and whether PE is the most likely diagnosis—are the most predictive for PE.⁸ The development of a more efficient algorithm based on these 3 items that uses differential D-dimer concentration thresholds could retain sensitivity and decrease unnecessary CTPAs. Decreasing CTPAs would avoid contrast-induced nephropathy and decrease cancers associated with radiation exposure.^9-11 Significant cost savings could also be achieved, as the estimated cost of one CTPA is $648, while a D-dimer concentration is estimated to cost $14.¹²

STUDY SUMMARY

Simplified algorithm diagnoses PE with fewer CTPAs

The YEARS study was a prospective cohort study conducted in 12 hospitals in the Netherlands that included 3616 patients with clinically suspected PE.¹ After excluding 151 patients who met exclusion criteria (life expectancy < 3 months, ongoing anticoagulation treatment, pregnancy, and contraindication to CTPA), investigators managed 3465 study patients according to the YEARS algorithm. This algorithm called for obtaining a D-dimer concentration in all patients and assessment using the YEARS clinical decision rule, consisting of 3 items assessed by an attending physician: clinical signs of deep vein thrombosis, hemoptysis, and whether PE was the most likely diagnosis. PE was considered excluded if a patient had no positive YEARS items and a D-dimer concentration < 1000 ng/mL or if the patient had one or more YEARS items and a D-dimer concentration < 500 ng/mL. The primary outcome was venous thromboembolism (VTE) events at 3 months’ follow-up once PE was excluded. The secondary outcome was the number of required CTPAs using the YEARS decision rule compared with the number that would have been required if the Wells’ diagnostic algorithm had been implemented.

Of the 1743 patients who had none of the 3 YEARS items, 1320 had a D-dimer concentration below the 1000 ng/mL threshold. Fifty-five of the 423 who had a D-dimer ≥ 1000 ng/mL had confirmed PE by CTPA. In the 1722 patients who had at least 1 YEARS item, 1391 had a D-dimer concentration ≥ 500 ng/mL threshold; 401 of those 1391 had PE confirmed by CTPA.

Continue to: Eighteen of the 2964 patients...

Eighteen of the 2964 patients who had PE ruled out by the YEARS algorithm at baseline were found to have symptomatic VTE during the follow-up period (0.61%; 95% CI, 0.36-0.96), with 6 patients (0.20%; 95% CI, 0.07-0.44) sustaining a fatal PE. The 3-month incidence of VTE in patients who did not have CTPA was 0.43% (95% CI, 0.17-0.88), which is similar to the 0.34% (0.036-0.96) reported in a previous meta-analysis of the Wells’ rule algorithm.¹³ Overall, fatal PE occurred in 0.3% (95% CI, 0.12-0.78) of patients in the YEARS cohort vs 0.6% (0.4-1.1) in a meta-analysis of studies using standard algorithms.¹⁴

The new diagnostic algorithm reduced the use of CT pulmonary angiography by 14% and produced a cost savings of $309,096.

Using an intention-to-diagnose analysis, 1611 (46%) patients did not have a CTPA indicated by the YEARS algorithm compared with 1174 (34%) using the Wells’ algorithm, for an absolute difference of 13% (95% CI, 10-15) and estimated cost savings of $283,176 in this sample. The per-protocol analysis also had a decrease of CTPA examinations in favor of the YEARS algorithm, ruling out 1651 (48%) patients—a decrease of 14% (95% CI, 12-16) and an estimated savings of $309,096.

WHAT’S NEW

High-level evidence says 14% fewer CTPAs

The YEARS study provides a high level of evidence that a new, simple diagnostic algorithm can reliably and efficiently exclude PE and decrease the need for CTPA by 14% (absolute difference; 95% CI, 12-16) when compared with using the Wells’ rule and fixed D-dimer threshold of < 500 ng/mL.

CAVEATS

No adjusting D-dimer for age

The YEARS criteria does not consider an age-adjusted D-dimer threshold, which has been shown to further decrease CTPA use.⁶ This does not preclude the use of YEARS criteria; applying age-adjusted D-dimer thresholds would have led to an absolute reduction of 8.7% (95% CI, 6.4-11) in CTPAs.⁷

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

None to speak of

We see no challenges to the implementation of this recommendation.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center For Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center For Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

The prevalence of allergic disease in the general population is quite high; 8.3% of adults and children have asthma and 11.4% of children have skin allergies.¹ Food allergies are present in 8% of children and 5% of adults,² and up to 10% of anaphylactic reactions in the United States are due to stinging insects.³

Allergy immunotherapy has been shown to produce a 2.7- to 13.7-fold overall improvement in hypersensitivity reactions.

Moderate-to-severe food and environmental allergies can negatively affect multiple organ systems and significantly impact morbidity and mortality.⁴ Quality of life and the financial well-being of patients with allergic diseases, as well as that of their families, can also be significantly impacted by these conditions.^4,5 High prevalence and burden of disease mandate that family physicians (FPs) stay up-to-date on the full array of treatment options for allergic diseases. What follows are 6 common questions about allergy immunotherapy (AIT) and the evidence-based answers that will help you to identify and treat appropriate candidates, as well as educate them along the way.

IMAGE: © ALICIA BUELOW

Who is a candidate for AIT?

Patients with moderate-to-severe immunoglobulin (Ig)E-mediated allergies whose symptoms are not adequately controlled by medications and allergen trigger avoidance are candidates for AIT.^6-8 Skin prick/puncture testing provides the most reliable and cost-effective confirmation of allergies that are suspected, based on patient history and clinical assessment for allergic symptoms.⁹ Life-threatening reactions to skin prick/puncture testing are rare.⁹ While in vitro (laboratory) testing for IgE levels to specific antigens may be more convenient for patients and less invasive than skin prick/puncture testing, it is also less sensitive and less reliable at quantifying the severity of sensitization.⁹

What constitutes AIT?

AIT is a disease-modifying treatment that, along with allergen avoidance, can provide long-term remission of allergic disease in certain circumstances.^6,7 Consistent gradual exposure to an allergen helps to dampen the inflammatory reaction driven by T cells and B cells, producing clinical tolerance or desensitization that persists after the discontinuation of AIT.⁸ While subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) is the most widely known type of AIT (ie, allergy shots), there are additional ways that AIT can be administered. These include sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT), venom immunotherapy (VIT), and oral immunotherapy (OIT). The selection of the route of administration depends on the exact nature and symptoms of the allergic condition being treated (TABLE^6,8-12).

AIT involves 2 phases

The first phase is the induction or buildup phase during which patients are given gradually increasing amounts of allergen to induce a protective immunologic response.⁶ After 8 to 28 weeks, the maintenance phase begins, during which continued, consistent allergen exposure is designed to prevent relapse of, and facilitate continued remission of, allergy symptoms.⁶ The maintenance phase of AIT can last 24 to 48 months.^6,10 Certain patients may qualify for an expedited AIT regimen called cluster or rush immunotherapy.⁶

While lab testing may be more convenient for patients and less invasive than skin prick/ puncture testing, it is also less sensitive and less reliable at quantifying the severity of sensitization.

Conventional schedules for AIT involve increasing the dose of allergen given at each visit (1-3 doses/wk), whereas rush dosing involves multiple, increasing doses given in a single extended visit to reach therapeutic desensitization faster.⁶ AIT has been shown to produce a 2.7- to 13.7-fold overall improvement in hypersensitivity reactions.¹⁰

Length of therapy must be individualized

Experts recommend that the length of treatment with AIT be customized for each patient based on the severity of pretreatment allergy symptoms, the benefit experienced with AIT, the inconvenience of AIT to the patient, and the anticipated impact of symptom relapse.^6,10 There are no physiologic symptoms or objective tests that predict which patients will remain in remission after discontinuing AIT; thus, a joint task force of allergy experts suggests that the decision to restart AIT in patients who have a relapse in allergic symptoms should be made based on the same factors used to determine the duration of the maintenance phase.⁶

Continue to: These allergans are appropriate for AIT

 

 

These allergens are appropriate for AIT

Allergens may be described in terms of mechanism and chronicity of exposure. While avoidance of offending allergens is recommended for those who are sensitized, avoidance is not always possible.^6,7,9,13 AIT has been studied as a therapeutic modality to prevent exposure-related symptoms associated with each of the following types of allergens.^6,7,9,11,14

Inhalant allergens circulate in disturbed and undisturbed air and may be seasonal (eg, pollen), perennial (eg, cat/dog allergens), and/or occupational.⁹ They can derive from the indoors (eg, cockroach, cat, dog, dust mite) or outdoors (eg, tree, grass, or weed pollen ),^6,7,9,11 and serve as triggers for many allergic diseases such as allergic rhinitis (AR), allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, allergic dermatitis, and asthma.^7,13

Food allergens. Sensitization to food allergens may produce a range of symptoms.^6,7 One person may experience nothing more than tingling of the lips when eating a peach, while another may experience throat tightness and anaphylaxis due to the aroma of shellfish cooking.

Occupational allergens. Exposure to occupational allergens varies depending on the setting. Those who work in health care or with animals can be exposed to allergens (eg, latex and animal proteins, respectively) that can cause skin or respiratory hypersensitivity reactions. Occupational allergens can also include chemicals; workers in agriculture or housekeeping may be particularly at risk.

Insect allergens. Envenomation by stinging insects of the order Hymenoptera (bees, yellow jackets, hornets, wasps, fire ants) most commonly causes a pruritic, painful local reaction, but patients sensitized to Hymenoptera venom experience systemic allergic reactions that range from mild to life-threatening.^3,6,7

Continue to: When should you use AIT?

 

 

When should you use AIT?

Allergic rhinitis (AR). AR can be triggered by exposure to indoor or outdoor inhalant allergens. Research has shown AIT to be an effective treatment for AR and the conjunctivitis caused by inhaled environmental allergens.^15-17 AIT results in improved symptom control and decreased use of rescue medication (standardized mean difference [SMD] -0.32; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.23 to -0.33, favoring AIT intervention) in patients with seasonal or perennial AR.^15-17

SCIT effectiveness has been demonstrated in sensitized patients who have symptoms associated with pollen, animal allergens, dust mites, and mold/fungi,^15,16 and SCIT may be effective for the treatment of symptoms associated with cockroach exposure.¹¹ SLIT is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of several pollen allergens with efficacy rates similar to those of SCIT and with no significant difference in adverse events (AEs).^8,15,16 Direct comparison studies of SCIT and SLIT preparations for treating grass allergy, while of low quality, showed comparable reductions in allergic rhinoconjunctival symptoms.¹⁵

Asthma. AIT (SCIT and SLIT) has been shown to be effective and safe in patients with mild-to-moderate asthma associated with inhalant allergens. Asthma should be controlled prior to initiation of AIT.^6,8,10 Well-known allergic triggers for asthma exacerbation include indoor inhaled allergens (eg, house dust mite, animal dander, cockroach), outdoor inhalant allergens (plants, pollen), and occupational inhaled allergens (silkworm, weevil).^11,13

In one meta-analysis of 796 patients with asthma from 19 different randomized controlled trials, SCIT significantly decreased asthma-related symptom scores (SMD = -0.94; 95% CI, -1.58 to -0.29; P = .004), as well as asthma medication scores (SMD = -1.06; 95% CI, -1.70 to -0.42; P = .001).¹⁸ While AIT has not been shown to improve lung function, meta-analyses have shown that adults with asthma treated with AIT experience fewer/less severe exacerbations and use less rescue medication when compared with those taking placebo.^19,20 Furthermore, studies have shown that SCIT and SLIT reduce asthma symptoms and asthma medication use compared with placebo or usual care in the pediatric population.²⁰

Adults with asthma treated with allergy immunotherapy use less rescue medication when compared to those taking placebo.

As helpful as AIT can be for some patients with mild-to-moderate asthma, patients with severe asthma experience more severe adverse reactions with AIT.²¹ Therefore, most experts recommend against administering AIT to patients with severe asthma.^6,8,21

Continue to: Stinging insects

Stinging insects. VIT is used for patients with hypersensitivity to the venom from insects of the order Hymenoptera (see previous list of insects).^3,11,22 A meta-analysis concluded, based on limited evidence from low-quality studies, that VIT has the potential to substantially reduce the incidence of severe allergic reactions in patients with Hymenoptera sensitivity with 72% of patients benefitting from VIT (number needed to treat [NNT] = 1.4).²² VIT reduces the risk of a systemic reaction, as well as the size and duration of large local reactions (LLRs).^6,22 Immunotherapy for stinging insects also has been shown to improve disease-specific quality of life (risk difference = 1.41 strongly favoring VIT).^6,22

Insect allergens. Research has shown AIT to be an effective therapy for many allergens even though the potency and effectiveness for some allergens are not standardized or regulated.^6,7,11,14 For example, AIT is available for some inhaled insect allergens; however, because the extracts are not standardized, AIT produces inconsistent outcomes.^11,14 As another example, certain occupations lead to exposure to inhaled insect allergens such as silkworm and weevils. AIT is not indicated for either because available silkworm extracts are used only for allergy testing.¹¹ There are no extracts to test for or treat weevil allergy.¹¹

Food. IgE-mediated food allergy can result in oral allergy syndrome, angioedema, urticaria, and/or anaphylaxis.^2,7,8 There is some evidence that AIT raises the threshold of reactivity in children with IgE-mediated food allergies.^6,7,23-25 But the studies available for meta-analyses (some of which involved OIT) were deemed to be of low quality due to a high risk of bias and a small number of participants.^24,25 AIT for food allergies is associated with a substantially increased incidence of moderate adverse reactions, including upper respiratory, gastrointestinal, and skin symptoms, with a probability of 46% during the buildup phase and a number needed to harm (NNH) of 2.1 (95% CI, 1.8-2.5; P < .0001).^6,25 Therefore, experts consider AIT in any form for food hypersensitivity to be investigational.^6,10

Allergen immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis has proven to be effective at improving quality of life and symptom control and decreasing comorbid disease and use of rescue medication.

But preliminary data from a recent phase 3 trial of OIT for peanut allergy involving 499 children and teens are promising; 67.2% tolerated the food challenge of ≥ 600 mg of peanut protein at the completion of peanut OIT without dose-limiting symptoms (difference = 63.2 percentage points; 95% CI, 53-73.3; P < .001).²⁶ More than twice as many participants in the placebo group vs the treatment group experienced AEs that were moderate (59% vs 25%, respectively) or severe (11% vs 5%, respectively).

There are ongoing trials of SCIT, SLIT, and OIT using modified food allergens to make participants less allergic while maintaining immunogenicity.^2,27 Additional trials include adjunctive treatments like probiotics to create safer, more effective options for children with food allergies.^2,27 Keep in mind that children with food allergies often have concomitant allergies (eg, inhalant allergies) that can benefit from AIT.

Continue to: Other clinical practice strategies include...

Other clinical practice strategies include the introduction of extensively heated (baked) milk and egg products, which benefit the majority of milk- and egg-allergic children.^2,28 An American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (AAAAI)-sponsored Task Force and the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) support exclusive breastfeeding for the first 4 to 6 months of life to decrease the risk of developing food allergies.^6,7

Atopic dermatitis (AD). AD is an IgE-mediated skin disease that affects children and adults. AD is associated with asthma, AR, and food allergy.¹³ Early studies showed that AIT reduced topical corticosteroid use and improved the SCORAD (SCORing Atopic Dermatitis; see www.scorad.corti.li/) score.¹⁰ However, Cochrane reviews of studies involving children and adults with AD undergoing AIT via SCIT, SLIT, or OIT routes found that AIT was not effective in treating AD when accounting for the quality and heterogeneity of the studies.^12,29 In addition, there were no significant differences in SCORAD scores.^10,12

Contact allergens. Contact allergens, including plant resins (eg, poison ivy) and metals (eg, nickel) cause local dermatitis through a cell-mediated, delayed hypersensitivity response. AIT is not indicated for contact dermatitis.^6,9

Why use AIT?

First, AIT has been shown to modify disease. Second, because of its disease-modifying properties, AIT may provide cost savings over standard drug treatment in patients with asthma and AR.^17,20,30 In fact, individual studies have demonstrated ≥ 80% cost savings of AIT over standard drug regimens, although meta-analyses have been unable to demonstrate the same.^30,31

In addition, initial studies suggested that AIT might help to prevent the development of new allergen sensitizations.³² One meta-analysis found that AIT decreased the short-term risk of developing asthma in children with AR; however, subsequent studies showed that AIT did not have efficacy in preventing new allergic disease.^31,33

Continue to: How do you administer AIT?

 

 

How do you administer AIT?

FPs may be asked to administer AIT to their patients. Patients will typically have weekly office visits during the induction phase of AIT and should have appointments every 6 to 12 months during the maintenance phase.^6,8

While allergy immunotherapy has not been shown to improve lung function in patients with asthma, studies have shown that patients experience fewer exacerbations.

Collaboration with an allergy specialist is wise for dosing schedules and possibly for information regarding adverse reactions during administration. It is essential that AIT be administered by clinicians who are knowledgeable about the signs and symptoms of minor allergic reactions (eg, pruritus, mild erythema, and swelling at the administration site) and severe ones (eg, angioedema, shock, anaphylaxis), as well as who have immediate access to emergency medications and resuscitation, should it be needed.^6-8,34

Most (86%) adverse reactions will occur within 30 minutes of administration of AIT; hence, the recommendation is to observe patients for 30 minutes following AIT administration.^6,7,34 Continual training and “mock” severe reaction responses are beneficial for staff administering AIT to ensure appropriate equipment is available and that appropriate procedures are followed. Late-phase reactions can occur and usually present within 6 to 12 hours of administration; thus, it is essential for patients to be educated on the signs and symptoms of adverse reactions and on symptomatic and emergent treatment.^9,34

Experts consider allergy immunotherapy in any form for food hypersensitivity to be investigational.

Rush immunotherapy regimens for inhalant allergens are associated with increased AEs; therefore, pretreatment with antihistamines, leukotriene antagonists, the monoclonal antibody omalizumab, corticosteroids, or combinations of these agents is often used.^6,34 In contrast to inhaled allergens, rush VIT has not been associated with an increased risk of adverse reactions in meta-analyses.^6,22,34 Most experts recommend that AIT be discontinued if anaphylaxis occurs.^8,34

Is AIT safe?

AIT is a proven safe and effective disease-modifying treatment option.^6-8,31,35 Even when AIT is initiated within the season of increased allergen exposure, meta-analyses reveal no increase in adverse events in patients undergoing AIT.³⁵ Given the lack of high-quality evidence confirming the safety of AIT in the following specific situations, both the AAAAI and EAACI have concluded that these conditions/situations are absolute contraindications for AIT due to the risk of severe reactions by activation of underlying disease^8,21,36:

• severe asthma;
• acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS); and
• initiation of AIT during pregnancy.

Continue to: Patients with a history of transplantation...

Patients with a history of transplantation, cancer in remission, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) without AIDS, and cardiovascular disease have been safely treated with AIT with a < 1.5% incidence of serious adverse events.^6,21,36 It is possible to give patients taking beta-blockers and/or angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) AIT with appropriate consideration. Both classes of drugs can interfere with emergency treatment, so one should consider substitution with an agent from another class if possible during AIT.^6,8,20,34 Patients taking ACEIs receiving VIT had substantially increased adverse reactions compared with other forms of AIT; thus, individual risks and benefits must be weighed carefully before initiating VIT.^6,34

Looking ahead

Studies evaluating the indications for AIT in oral allergy syndrome, food allergy, latex allergy, AD, and venom allergy are ongoing.^2,7,10,26 Although the incidence of severe adverse allergy reactions during AIT is rare, there are investigations of using various immune-modifying agents to improve the safety and efficacy of AIT.³⁷ Application of allergen preparation using skin patches, intralymphatic injections, and chemically modified allergens to make them less immunologically reactive are being researched to further improve safety profiles and make AIT less time consuming.³⁸ In Europe and the United States, there is a call for more rigid studies using standardized SLIT preparations. This will allow for an increased number of AIT studies with decreased heterogeneity.

CORRESPONDENCE
Dellyse Bright, MD, Carolinas Medical Center Family Medicine Residency Program, Atrium Health, 2001 Vail Avenue, Suite 400B, Charlotte, NC 28207; [email protected].

The prevalence of allergic disease in the general population is quite high; 8.3% of adults and children have asthma and 11.4% of children have skin allergies.¹ Food allergies are present in 8% of children and 5% of adults,² and up to 10% of anaphylactic reactions in the United States are due to stinging insects.³

Allergy immunotherapy has been shown to produce a 2.7- to 13.7-fold overall improvement in hypersensitivity reactions.

Moderate-to-severe food and environmental allergies can negatively affect multiple organ systems and significantly impact morbidity and mortality.⁴ Quality of life and the financial well-being of patients with allergic diseases, as well as that of their families, can also be significantly impacted by these conditions.^4,5 High prevalence and burden of disease mandate that family physicians (FPs) stay up-to-date on the full array of treatment options for allergic diseases. What follows are 6 common questions about allergy immunotherapy (AIT) and the evidence-based answers that will help you to identify and treat appropriate candidates, as well as educate them along the way.

IMAGE: © ALICIA BUELOW

Who is a candidate for AIT?

Patients with moderate-to-severe immunoglobulin (Ig)E-mediated allergies whose symptoms are not adequately controlled by medications and allergen trigger avoidance are candidates for AIT.^6-8 Skin prick/puncture testing provides the most reliable and cost-effective confirmation of allergies that are suspected, based on patient history and clinical assessment for allergic symptoms.⁹ Life-threatening reactions to skin prick/puncture testing are rare.⁹ While in vitro (laboratory) testing for IgE levels to specific antigens may be more convenient for patients and less invasive than skin prick/puncture testing, it is also less sensitive and less reliable at quantifying the severity of sensitization.⁹

What constitutes AIT?

AIT is a disease-modifying treatment that, along with allergen avoidance, can provide long-term remission of allergic disease in certain circumstances.^6,7 Consistent gradual exposure to an allergen helps to dampen the inflammatory reaction driven by T cells and B cells, producing clinical tolerance or desensitization that persists after the discontinuation of AIT.⁸ While subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) is the most widely known type of AIT (ie, allergy shots), there are additional ways that AIT can be administered. These include sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT), venom immunotherapy (VIT), and oral immunotherapy (OIT). The selection of the route of administration depends on the exact nature and symptoms of the allergic condition being treated (TABLE^6,8-12).

AIT involves 2 phases

The first phase is the induction or buildup phase during which patients are given gradually increasing amounts of allergen to induce a protective immunologic response.⁶ After 8 to 28 weeks, the maintenance phase begins, during which continued, consistent allergen exposure is designed to prevent relapse of, and facilitate continued remission of, allergy symptoms.⁶ The maintenance phase of AIT can last 24 to 48 months.^6,10 Certain patients may qualify for an expedited AIT regimen called cluster or rush immunotherapy.⁶

While lab testing may be more convenient for patients and less invasive than skin prick/ puncture testing, it is also less sensitive and less reliable at quantifying the severity of sensitization.

Conventional schedules for AIT involve increasing the dose of allergen given at each visit (1-3 doses/wk), whereas rush dosing involves multiple, increasing doses given in a single extended visit to reach therapeutic desensitization faster.⁶ AIT has been shown to produce a 2.7- to 13.7-fold overall improvement in hypersensitivity reactions.¹⁰

Length of therapy must be individualized

Experts recommend that the length of treatment with AIT be customized for each patient based on the severity of pretreatment allergy symptoms, the benefit experienced with AIT, the inconvenience of AIT to the patient, and the anticipated impact of symptom relapse.^6,10 There are no physiologic symptoms or objective tests that predict which patients will remain in remission after discontinuing AIT; thus, a joint task force of allergy experts suggests that the decision to restart AIT in patients who have a relapse in allergic symptoms should be made based on the same factors used to determine the duration of the maintenance phase.⁶

Continue to: These allergans are appropriate for AIT

 

 

These allergens are appropriate for AIT

Allergens may be described in terms of mechanism and chronicity of exposure. While avoidance of offending allergens is recommended for those who are sensitized, avoidance is not always possible.^6,7,9,13 AIT has been studied as a therapeutic modality to prevent exposure-related symptoms associated with each of the following types of allergens.^6,7,9,11,14

Inhalant allergens circulate in disturbed and undisturbed air and may be seasonal (eg, pollen), perennial (eg, cat/dog allergens), and/or occupational.⁹ They can derive from the indoors (eg, cockroach, cat, dog, dust mite) or outdoors (eg, tree, grass, or weed pollen ),^6,7,9,11 and serve as triggers for many allergic diseases such as allergic rhinitis (AR), allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, allergic dermatitis, and asthma.^7,13

Food allergens. Sensitization to food allergens may produce a range of symptoms.^6,7 One person may experience nothing more than tingling of the lips when eating a peach, while another may experience throat tightness and anaphylaxis due to the aroma of shellfish cooking.

Occupational allergens. Exposure to occupational allergens varies depending on the setting. Those who work in health care or with animals can be exposed to allergens (eg, latex and animal proteins, respectively) that can cause skin or respiratory hypersensitivity reactions. Occupational allergens can also include chemicals; workers in agriculture or housekeeping may be particularly at risk.

Insect allergens. Envenomation by stinging insects of the order Hymenoptera (bees, yellow jackets, hornets, wasps, fire ants) most commonly causes a pruritic, painful local reaction, but patients sensitized to Hymenoptera venom experience systemic allergic reactions that range from mild to life-threatening.^3,6,7

Continue to: When should you use AIT?

 

 

When should you use AIT?

Allergic rhinitis (AR). AR can be triggered by exposure to indoor or outdoor inhalant allergens. Research has shown AIT to be an effective treatment for AR and the conjunctivitis caused by inhaled environmental allergens.^15-17 AIT results in improved symptom control and decreased use of rescue medication (standardized mean difference [SMD] -0.32; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.23 to -0.33, favoring AIT intervention) in patients with seasonal or perennial AR.^15-17

SCIT effectiveness has been demonstrated in sensitized patients who have symptoms associated with pollen, animal allergens, dust mites, and mold/fungi,^15,16 and SCIT may be effective for the treatment of symptoms associated with cockroach exposure.¹¹ SLIT is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of several pollen allergens with efficacy rates similar to those of SCIT and with no significant difference in adverse events (AEs).^8,15,16 Direct comparison studies of SCIT and SLIT preparations for treating grass allergy, while of low quality, showed comparable reductions in allergic rhinoconjunctival symptoms.¹⁵

Asthma. AIT (SCIT and SLIT) has been shown to be effective and safe in patients with mild-to-moderate asthma associated with inhalant allergens. Asthma should be controlled prior to initiation of AIT.^6,8,10 Well-known allergic triggers for asthma exacerbation include indoor inhaled allergens (eg, house dust mite, animal dander, cockroach), outdoor inhalant allergens (plants, pollen), and occupational inhaled allergens (silkworm, weevil).^11,13

In one meta-analysis of 796 patients with asthma from 19 different randomized controlled trials, SCIT significantly decreased asthma-related symptom scores (SMD = -0.94; 95% CI, -1.58 to -0.29; P = .004), as well as asthma medication scores (SMD = -1.06; 95% CI, -1.70 to -0.42; P = .001).¹⁸ While AIT has not been shown to improve lung function, meta-analyses have shown that adults with asthma treated with AIT experience fewer/less severe exacerbations and use less rescue medication when compared with those taking placebo.^19,20 Furthermore, studies have shown that SCIT and SLIT reduce asthma symptoms and asthma medication use compared with placebo or usual care in the pediatric population.²⁰

Adults with asthma treated with allergy immunotherapy use less rescue medication when compared to those taking placebo.

As helpful as AIT can be for some patients with mild-to-moderate asthma, patients with severe asthma experience more severe adverse reactions with AIT.²¹ Therefore, most experts recommend against administering AIT to patients with severe asthma.^6,8,21

Continue to: Stinging insects

Stinging insects. VIT is used for patients with hypersensitivity to the venom from insects of the order Hymenoptera (see previous list of insects).^3,11,22 A meta-analysis concluded, based on limited evidence from low-quality studies, that VIT has the potential to substantially reduce the incidence of severe allergic reactions in patients with Hymenoptera sensitivity with 72% of patients benefitting from VIT (number needed to treat [NNT] = 1.4).²² VIT reduces the risk of a systemic reaction, as well as the size and duration of large local reactions (LLRs).^6,22 Immunotherapy for stinging insects also has been shown to improve disease-specific quality of life (risk difference = 1.41 strongly favoring VIT).^6,22

Insect allergens. Research has shown AIT to be an effective therapy for many allergens even though the potency and effectiveness for some allergens are not standardized or regulated.^6,7,11,14 For example, AIT is available for some inhaled insect allergens; however, because the extracts are not standardized, AIT produces inconsistent outcomes.^11,14 As another example, certain occupations lead to exposure to inhaled insect allergens such as silkworm and weevils. AIT is not indicated for either because available silkworm extracts are used only for allergy testing.¹¹ There are no extracts to test for or treat weevil allergy.¹¹

Food. IgE-mediated food allergy can result in oral allergy syndrome, angioedema, urticaria, and/or anaphylaxis.^2,7,8 There is some evidence that AIT raises the threshold of reactivity in children with IgE-mediated food allergies.^6,7,23-25 But the studies available for meta-analyses (some of which involved OIT) were deemed to be of low quality due to a high risk of bias and a small number of participants.^24,25 AIT for food allergies is associated with a substantially increased incidence of moderate adverse reactions, including upper respiratory, gastrointestinal, and skin symptoms, with a probability of 46% during the buildup phase and a number needed to harm (NNH) of 2.1 (95% CI, 1.8-2.5; P < .0001).^6,25 Therefore, experts consider AIT in any form for food hypersensitivity to be investigational.^6,10

Allergen immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis has proven to be effective at improving quality of life and symptom control and decreasing comorbid disease and use of rescue medication.

But preliminary data from a recent phase 3 trial of OIT for peanut allergy involving 499 children and teens are promising; 67.2% tolerated the food challenge of ≥ 600 mg of peanut protein at the completion of peanut OIT without dose-limiting symptoms (difference = 63.2 percentage points; 95% CI, 53-73.3; P < .001).²⁶ More than twice as many participants in the placebo group vs the treatment group experienced AEs that were moderate (59% vs 25%, respectively) or severe (11% vs 5%, respectively).

There are ongoing trials of SCIT, SLIT, and OIT using modified food allergens to make participants less allergic while maintaining immunogenicity.^2,27 Additional trials include adjunctive treatments like probiotics to create safer, more effective options for children with food allergies.^2,27 Keep in mind that children with food allergies often have concomitant allergies (eg, inhalant allergies) that can benefit from AIT.

Continue to: Other clinical practice strategies include...

Other clinical practice strategies include the introduction of extensively heated (baked) milk and egg products, which benefit the majority of milk- and egg-allergic children.^2,28 An American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (AAAAI)-sponsored Task Force and the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) support exclusive breastfeeding for the first 4 to 6 months of life to decrease the risk of developing food allergies.^6,7

Atopic dermatitis (AD). AD is an IgE-mediated skin disease that affects children and adults. AD is associated with asthma, AR, and food allergy.¹³ Early studies showed that AIT reduced topical corticosteroid use and improved the SCORAD (SCORing Atopic Dermatitis; see www.scorad.corti.li/) score.¹⁰ However, Cochrane reviews of studies involving children and adults with AD undergoing AIT via SCIT, SLIT, or OIT routes found that AIT was not effective in treating AD when accounting for the quality and heterogeneity of the studies.^12,29 In addition, there were no significant differences in SCORAD scores.^10,12

Contact allergens. Contact allergens, including plant resins (eg, poison ivy) and metals (eg, nickel) cause local dermatitis through a cell-mediated, delayed hypersensitivity response. AIT is not indicated for contact dermatitis.^6,9

Why use AIT?

First, AIT has been shown to modify disease. Second, because of its disease-modifying properties, AIT may provide cost savings over standard drug treatment in patients with asthma and AR.^17,20,30 In fact, individual studies have demonstrated ≥ 80% cost savings of AIT over standard drug regimens, although meta-analyses have been unable to demonstrate the same.^30,31

In addition, initial studies suggested that AIT might help to prevent the development of new allergen sensitizations.³² One meta-analysis found that AIT decreased the short-term risk of developing asthma in children with AR; however, subsequent studies showed that AIT did not have efficacy in preventing new allergic disease.^31,33

Continue to: How do you administer AIT?

 

 

How do you administer AIT?

FPs may be asked to administer AIT to their patients. Patients will typically have weekly office visits during the induction phase of AIT and should have appointments every 6 to 12 months during the maintenance phase.^6,8

While allergy immunotherapy has not been shown to improve lung function in patients with asthma, studies have shown that patients experience fewer exacerbations.

Collaboration with an allergy specialist is wise for dosing schedules and possibly for information regarding adverse reactions during administration. It is essential that AIT be administered by clinicians who are knowledgeable about the signs and symptoms of minor allergic reactions (eg, pruritus, mild erythema, and swelling at the administration site) and severe ones (eg, angioedema, shock, anaphylaxis), as well as who have immediate access to emergency medications and resuscitation, should it be needed.^6-8,34

Most (86%) adverse reactions will occur within 30 minutes of administration of AIT; hence, the recommendation is to observe patients for 30 minutes following AIT administration.^6,7,34 Continual training and “mock” severe reaction responses are beneficial for staff administering AIT to ensure appropriate equipment is available and that appropriate procedures are followed. Late-phase reactions can occur and usually present within 6 to 12 hours of administration; thus, it is essential for patients to be educated on the signs and symptoms of adverse reactions and on symptomatic and emergent treatment.^9,34

Experts consider allergy immunotherapy in any form for food hypersensitivity to be investigational.

Rush immunotherapy regimens for inhalant allergens are associated with increased AEs; therefore, pretreatment with antihistamines, leukotriene antagonists, the monoclonal antibody omalizumab, corticosteroids, or combinations of these agents is often used.^6,34 In contrast to inhaled allergens, rush VIT has not been associated with an increased risk of adverse reactions in meta-analyses.^6,22,34 Most experts recommend that AIT be discontinued if anaphylaxis occurs.^8,34

Is AIT safe?

AIT is a proven safe and effective disease-modifying treatment option.^6-8,31,35 Even when AIT is initiated within the season of increased allergen exposure, meta-analyses reveal no increase in adverse events in patients undergoing AIT.³⁵ Given the lack of high-quality evidence confirming the safety of AIT in the following specific situations, both the AAAAI and EAACI have concluded that these conditions/situations are absolute contraindications for AIT due to the risk of severe reactions by activation of underlying disease^8,21,36:

• severe asthma;
• acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS); and
• initiation of AIT during pregnancy.

Continue to: Patients with a history of transplantation...

Patients with a history of transplantation, cancer in remission, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) without AIDS, and cardiovascular disease have been safely treated with AIT with a < 1.5% incidence of serious adverse events.^6,21,36 It is possible to give patients taking beta-blockers and/or angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) AIT with appropriate consideration. Both classes of drugs can interfere with emergency treatment, so one should consider substitution with an agent from another class if possible during AIT.^6,8,20,34 Patients taking ACEIs receiving VIT had substantially increased adverse reactions compared with other forms of AIT; thus, individual risks and benefits must be weighed carefully before initiating VIT.^6,34

Looking ahead

Studies evaluating the indications for AIT in oral allergy syndrome, food allergy, latex allergy, AD, and venom allergy are ongoing.^2,7,10,26 Although the incidence of severe adverse allergy reactions during AIT is rare, there are investigations of using various immune-modifying agents to improve the safety and efficacy of AIT.³⁷ Application of allergen preparation using skin patches, intralymphatic injections, and chemically modified allergens to make them less immunologically reactive are being researched to further improve safety profiles and make AIT less time consuming.³⁸ In Europe and the United States, there is a call for more rigid studies using standardized SLIT preparations. This will allow for an increased number of AIT studies with decreased heterogeneity.

CORRESPONDENCE
Dellyse Bright, MD, Carolinas Medical Center Family Medicine Residency Program, Atrium Health, 2001 Vail Avenue, Suite 400B, Charlotte, NC 28207; [email protected].

The prevalence of allergic disease in the general population is quite high; 8.3% of adults and children have asthma and 11.4% of children have skin allergies.¹ Food allergies are present in 8% of children and 5% of adults,² and up to 10% of anaphylactic reactions in the United States are due to stinging insects.³

Allergy immunotherapy has been shown to produce a 2.7- to 13.7-fold overall improvement in hypersensitivity reactions.

Moderate-to-severe food and environmental allergies can negatively affect multiple organ systems and significantly impact morbidity and mortality.⁴ Quality of life and the financial well-being of patients with allergic diseases, as well as that of their families, can also be significantly impacted by these conditions.^4,5 High prevalence and burden of disease mandate that family physicians (FPs) stay up-to-date on the full array of treatment options for allergic diseases. What follows are 6 common questions about allergy immunotherapy (AIT) and the evidence-based answers that will help you to identify and treat appropriate candidates, as well as educate them along the way.

IMAGE: © ALICIA BUELOW

Who is a candidate for AIT?

Patients with moderate-to-severe immunoglobulin (Ig)E-mediated allergies whose symptoms are not adequately controlled by medications and allergen trigger avoidance are candidates for AIT.^6-8 Skin prick/puncture testing provides the most reliable and cost-effective confirmation of allergies that are suspected, based on patient history and clinical assessment for allergic symptoms.⁹ Life-threatening reactions to skin prick/puncture testing are rare.⁹ While in vitro (laboratory) testing for IgE levels to specific antigens may be more convenient for patients and less invasive than skin prick/puncture testing, it is also less sensitive and less reliable at quantifying the severity of sensitization.⁹

What constitutes AIT?

AIT is a disease-modifying treatment that, along with allergen avoidance, can provide long-term remission of allergic disease in certain circumstances.^6,7 Consistent gradual exposure to an allergen helps to dampen the inflammatory reaction driven by T cells and B cells, producing clinical tolerance or desensitization that persists after the discontinuation of AIT.⁸ While subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) is the most widely known type of AIT (ie, allergy shots), there are additional ways that AIT can be administered. These include sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT), venom immunotherapy (VIT), and oral immunotherapy (OIT). The selection of the route of administration depends on the exact nature and symptoms of the allergic condition being treated (TABLE^6,8-12).

AIT involves 2 phases

The first phase is the induction or buildup phase during which patients are given gradually increasing amounts of allergen to induce a protective immunologic response.⁶ After 8 to 28 weeks, the maintenance phase begins, during which continued, consistent allergen exposure is designed to prevent relapse of, and facilitate continued remission of, allergy symptoms.⁶ The maintenance phase of AIT can last 24 to 48 months.^6,10 Certain patients may qualify for an expedited AIT regimen called cluster or rush immunotherapy.⁶

While lab testing may be more convenient for patients and less invasive than skin prick/ puncture testing, it is also less sensitive and less reliable at quantifying the severity of sensitization.

Conventional schedules for AIT involve increasing the dose of allergen given at each visit (1-3 doses/wk), whereas rush dosing involves multiple, increasing doses given in a single extended visit to reach therapeutic desensitization faster.⁶ AIT has been shown to produce a 2.7- to 13.7-fold overall improvement in hypersensitivity reactions.¹⁰

Length of therapy must be individualized

Experts recommend that the length of treatment with AIT be customized for each patient based on the severity of pretreatment allergy symptoms, the benefit experienced with AIT, the inconvenience of AIT to the patient, and the anticipated impact of symptom relapse.^6,10 There are no physiologic symptoms or objective tests that predict which patients will remain in remission after discontinuing AIT; thus, a joint task force of allergy experts suggests that the decision to restart AIT in patients who have a relapse in allergic symptoms should be made based on the same factors used to determine the duration of the maintenance phase.⁶

Continue to: These allergans are appropriate for AIT

 

 

These allergens are appropriate for AIT

Allergens may be described in terms of mechanism and chronicity of exposure. While avoidance of offending allergens is recommended for those who are sensitized, avoidance is not always possible.^6,7,9,13 AIT has been studied as a therapeutic modality to prevent exposure-related symptoms associated with each of the following types of allergens.^6,7,9,11,14

Inhalant allergens circulate in disturbed and undisturbed air and may be seasonal (eg, pollen), perennial (eg, cat/dog allergens), and/or occupational.⁹ They can derive from the indoors (eg, cockroach, cat, dog, dust mite) or outdoors (eg, tree, grass, or weed pollen ),^6,7,9,11 and serve as triggers for many allergic diseases such as allergic rhinitis (AR), allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, allergic dermatitis, and asthma.^7,13

Food allergens. Sensitization to food allergens may produce a range of symptoms.^6,7 One person may experience nothing more than tingling of the lips when eating a peach, while another may experience throat tightness and anaphylaxis due to the aroma of shellfish cooking.

Occupational allergens. Exposure to occupational allergens varies depending on the setting. Those who work in health care or with animals can be exposed to allergens (eg, latex and animal proteins, respectively) that can cause skin or respiratory hypersensitivity reactions. Occupational allergens can also include chemicals; workers in agriculture or housekeeping may be particularly at risk.

Insect allergens. Envenomation by stinging insects of the order Hymenoptera (bees, yellow jackets, hornets, wasps, fire ants) most commonly causes a pruritic, painful local reaction, but patients sensitized to Hymenoptera venom experience systemic allergic reactions that range from mild to life-threatening.^3,6,7

Continue to: When should you use AIT?

 

 

When should you use AIT?

Allergic rhinitis (AR). AR can be triggered by exposure to indoor or outdoor inhalant allergens. Research has shown AIT to be an effective treatment for AR and the conjunctivitis caused by inhaled environmental allergens.^15-17 AIT results in improved symptom control and decreased use of rescue medication (standardized mean difference [SMD] -0.32; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.23 to -0.33, favoring AIT intervention) in patients with seasonal or perennial AR.^15-17

SCIT effectiveness has been demonstrated in sensitized patients who have symptoms associated with pollen, animal allergens, dust mites, and mold/fungi,^15,16 and SCIT may be effective for the treatment of symptoms associated with cockroach exposure.¹¹ SLIT is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of several pollen allergens with efficacy rates similar to those of SCIT and with no significant difference in adverse events (AEs).^8,15,16 Direct comparison studies of SCIT and SLIT preparations for treating grass allergy, while of low quality, showed comparable reductions in allergic rhinoconjunctival symptoms.¹⁵

Asthma. AIT (SCIT and SLIT) has been shown to be effective and safe in patients with mild-to-moderate asthma associated with inhalant allergens. Asthma should be controlled prior to initiation of AIT.^6,8,10 Well-known allergic triggers for asthma exacerbation include indoor inhaled allergens (eg, house dust mite, animal dander, cockroach), outdoor inhalant allergens (plants, pollen), and occupational inhaled allergens (silkworm, weevil).^11,13

In one meta-analysis of 796 patients with asthma from 19 different randomized controlled trials, SCIT significantly decreased asthma-related symptom scores (SMD = -0.94; 95% CI, -1.58 to -0.29; P = .004), as well as asthma medication scores (SMD = -1.06; 95% CI, -1.70 to -0.42; P = .001).¹⁸ While AIT has not been shown to improve lung function, meta-analyses have shown that adults with asthma treated with AIT experience fewer/less severe exacerbations and use less rescue medication when compared with those taking placebo.^19,20 Furthermore, studies have shown that SCIT and SLIT reduce asthma symptoms and asthma medication use compared with placebo or usual care in the pediatric population.²⁰

Adults with asthma treated with allergy immunotherapy use less rescue medication when compared to those taking placebo.

As helpful as AIT can be for some patients with mild-to-moderate asthma, patients with severe asthma experience more severe adverse reactions with AIT.²¹ Therefore, most experts recommend against administering AIT to patients with severe asthma.^6,8,21

Continue to: Stinging insects

Stinging insects. VIT is used for patients with hypersensitivity to the venom from insects of the order Hymenoptera (see previous list of insects).^3,11,22 A meta-analysis concluded, based on limited evidence from low-quality studies, that VIT has the potential to substantially reduce the incidence of severe allergic reactions in patients with Hymenoptera sensitivity with 72% of patients benefitting from VIT (number needed to treat [NNT] = 1.4).²² VIT reduces the risk of a systemic reaction, as well as the size and duration of large local reactions (LLRs).^6,22 Immunotherapy for stinging insects also has been shown to improve disease-specific quality of life (risk difference = 1.41 strongly favoring VIT).^6,22

Insect allergens. Research has shown AIT to be an effective therapy for many allergens even though the potency and effectiveness for some allergens are not standardized or regulated.^6,7,11,14 For example, AIT is available for some inhaled insect allergens; however, because the extracts are not standardized, AIT produces inconsistent outcomes.^11,14 As another example, certain occupations lead to exposure to inhaled insect allergens such as silkworm and weevils. AIT is not indicated for either because available silkworm extracts are used only for allergy testing.¹¹ There are no extracts to test for or treat weevil allergy.¹¹

Food. IgE-mediated food allergy can result in oral allergy syndrome, angioedema, urticaria, and/or anaphylaxis.^2,7,8 There is some evidence that AIT raises the threshold of reactivity in children with IgE-mediated food allergies.^6,7,23-25 But the studies available for meta-analyses (some of which involved OIT) were deemed to be of low quality due to a high risk of bias and a small number of participants.^24,25 AIT for food allergies is associated with a substantially increased incidence of moderate adverse reactions, including upper respiratory, gastrointestinal, and skin symptoms, with a probability of 46% during the buildup phase and a number needed to harm (NNH) of 2.1 (95% CI, 1.8-2.5; P < .0001).^6,25 Therefore, experts consider AIT in any form for food hypersensitivity to be investigational.^6,10

Allergen immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis has proven to be effective at improving quality of life and symptom control and decreasing comorbid disease and use of rescue medication.

But preliminary data from a recent phase 3 trial of OIT for peanut allergy involving 499 children and teens are promising; 67.2% tolerated the food challenge of ≥ 600 mg of peanut protein at the completion of peanut OIT without dose-limiting symptoms (difference = 63.2 percentage points; 95% CI, 53-73.3; P < .001).²⁶ More than twice as many participants in the placebo group vs the treatment group experienced AEs that were moderate (59% vs 25%, respectively) or severe (11% vs 5%, respectively).

There are ongoing trials of SCIT, SLIT, and OIT using modified food allergens to make participants less allergic while maintaining immunogenicity.^2,27 Additional trials include adjunctive treatments like probiotics to create safer, more effective options for children with food allergies.^2,27 Keep in mind that children with food allergies often have concomitant allergies (eg, inhalant allergies) that can benefit from AIT.

Continue to: Other clinical practice strategies include...

Other clinical practice strategies include the introduction of extensively heated (baked) milk and egg products, which benefit the majority of milk- and egg-allergic children.^2,28 An American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (AAAAI)-sponsored Task Force and the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) support exclusive breastfeeding for the first 4 to 6 months of life to decrease the risk of developing food allergies.^6,7

Atopic dermatitis (AD). AD is an IgE-mediated skin disease that affects children and adults. AD is associated with asthma, AR, and food allergy.¹³ Early studies showed that AIT reduced topical corticosteroid use and improved the SCORAD (SCORing Atopic Dermatitis; see www.scorad.corti.li/) score.¹⁰ However, Cochrane reviews of studies involving children and adults with AD undergoing AIT via SCIT, SLIT, or OIT routes found that AIT was not effective in treating AD when accounting for the quality and heterogeneity of the studies.^12,29 In addition, there were no significant differences in SCORAD scores.^10,12

Contact allergens. Contact allergens, including plant resins (eg, poison ivy) and metals (eg, nickel) cause local dermatitis through a cell-mediated, delayed hypersensitivity response. AIT is not indicated for contact dermatitis.^6,9

Why use AIT?

First, AIT has been shown to modify disease. Second, because of its disease-modifying properties, AIT may provide cost savings over standard drug treatment in patients with asthma and AR.^17,20,30 In fact, individual studies have demonstrated ≥ 80% cost savings of AIT over standard drug regimens, although meta-analyses have been unable to demonstrate the same.^30,31

In addition, initial studies suggested that AIT might help to prevent the development of new allergen sensitizations.³² One meta-analysis found that AIT decreased the short-term risk of developing asthma in children with AR; however, subsequent studies showed that AIT did not have efficacy in preventing new allergic disease.^31,33

Continue to: How do you administer AIT?

 

 

How do you administer AIT?

FPs may be asked to administer AIT to their patients. Patients will typically have weekly office visits during the induction phase of AIT and should have appointments every 6 to 12 months during the maintenance phase.^6,8

While allergy immunotherapy has not been shown to improve lung function in patients with asthma, studies have shown that patients experience fewer exacerbations.

Collaboration with an allergy specialist is wise for dosing schedules and possibly for information regarding adverse reactions during administration. It is essential that AIT be administered by clinicians who are knowledgeable about the signs and symptoms of minor allergic reactions (eg, pruritus, mild erythema, and swelling at the administration site) and severe ones (eg, angioedema, shock, anaphylaxis), as well as who have immediate access to emergency medications and resuscitation, should it be needed.^6-8,34

Most (86%) adverse reactions will occur within 30 minutes of administration of AIT; hence, the recommendation is to observe patients for 30 minutes following AIT administration.^6,7,34 Continual training and “mock” severe reaction responses are beneficial for staff administering AIT to ensure appropriate equipment is available and that appropriate procedures are followed. Late-phase reactions can occur and usually present within 6 to 12 hours of administration; thus, it is essential for patients to be educated on the signs and symptoms of adverse reactions and on symptomatic and emergent treatment.^9,34

Experts consider allergy immunotherapy in any form for food hypersensitivity to be investigational.

Rush immunotherapy regimens for inhalant allergens are associated with increased AEs; therefore, pretreatment with antihistamines, leukotriene antagonists, the monoclonal antibody omalizumab, corticosteroids, or combinations of these agents is often used.^6,34 In contrast to inhaled allergens, rush VIT has not been associated with an increased risk of adverse reactions in meta-analyses.^6,22,34 Most experts recommend that AIT be discontinued if anaphylaxis occurs.^8,34

Is AIT safe?

AIT is a proven safe and effective disease-modifying treatment option.^6-8,31,35 Even when AIT is initiated within the season of increased allergen exposure, meta-analyses reveal no increase in adverse events in patients undergoing AIT.³⁵ Given the lack of high-quality evidence confirming the safety of AIT in the following specific situations, both the AAAAI and EAACI have concluded that these conditions/situations are absolute contraindications for AIT due to the risk of severe reactions by activation of underlying disease^8,21,36:

• severe asthma;
• acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS); and
• initiation of AIT during pregnancy.

Continue to: Patients with a history of transplantation...

Patients with a history of transplantation, cancer in remission, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) without AIDS, and cardiovascular disease have been safely treated with AIT with a < 1.5% incidence of serious adverse events.^6,21,36 It is possible to give patients taking beta-blockers and/or angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) AIT with appropriate consideration. Both classes of drugs can interfere with emergency treatment, so one should consider substitution with an agent from another class if possible during AIT.^6,8,20,34 Patients taking ACEIs receiving VIT had substantially increased adverse reactions compared with other forms of AIT; thus, individual risks and benefits must be weighed carefully before initiating VIT.^6,34

Looking ahead

Studies evaluating the indications for AIT in oral allergy syndrome, food allergy, latex allergy, AD, and venom allergy are ongoing.^2,7,10,26 Although the incidence of severe adverse allergy reactions during AIT is rare, there are investigations of using various immune-modifying agents to improve the safety and efficacy of AIT.³⁷ Application of allergen preparation using skin patches, intralymphatic injections, and chemically modified allergens to make them less immunologically reactive are being researched to further improve safety profiles and make AIT less time consuming.³⁸ In Europe and the United States, there is a call for more rigid studies using standardized SLIT preparations. This will allow for an increased number of AIT studies with decreased heterogeneity.

CORRESPONDENCE
Dellyse Bright, MD, Carolinas Medical Center Family Medicine Residency Program, Atrium Health, 2001 Vail Avenue, Suite 400B, Charlotte, NC 28207; [email protected].

The Food and Drug Administration has approved two new formulations for the anti–interleukin-5 biologic mepolizumab (Nucala) for treatment of certain severe or rare forms of asthma, according to a press release from the drug’s developer. The biologic will now be available as an autoinjector and as a prefilled safety syringe.

The 100-mg subcutaneous mepolizumab injection is indicated as an add-on treatment for patients 12 years and older with severe eosinophilic asthma, and the three-dose 100-mg subcutaneous injections are indicated for the rare eosinophilic granulomatosis and polyangiitis, with the biologic administered every 4 weeks in either context. The release emphasizes that mepolizumab is not approved for acute bronchospasm or status asthmaticus. Health care professionals should first determine whether self-assisted administration or administration provided by a caregiver is appropriate, and then they should provide patients and/or caregivers with proper training in how to do so.

The approval is based on two open-label, single-arm, phase 3a studies that demonstrated successful administration was possible with these options among patients with severe eosinophilic asthma, at rates of 89%-95% in one study and 100% in the other. These results were followed by those of an open-label, parallel group, single-dose study that confirmed the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles of these new means of administration were comparable with those currently approved.

Mepolizumab is not indicated for those with a history of hypersensitivity to either mepolizumab or to the formulation’s excipients, such as anaphylaxis, angioedema, bronchospasm, hypotension, urticaria, or rash. Any reductions of inhaled corticosteroids after initiation of mepolizumab should be gradual and under the supervision of a health care professional. Some infections by herpes zoster have been observed. The most common adverse reactions (occurring in 3% or more of patients and more often than with placebo) during the first 24 weeks of treatment were headache (19%), injection site reaction (8%), back pain (5%), fatigue (5%), influenza (3%), urinary tract infection (3%), abdominal pain upper (3%), pruritus (3%), eczema (3%), and muscle spasm (3%). Full prescribing information can be found on the FDA website.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved two new formulations for the anti–interleukin-5 biologic mepolizumab (Nucala) for treatment of certain severe or rare forms of asthma, according to a press release from the drug’s developer. The biologic will now be available as an autoinjector and as a prefilled safety syringe.

The 100-mg subcutaneous mepolizumab injection is indicated as an add-on treatment for patients 12 years and older with severe eosinophilic asthma, and the three-dose 100-mg subcutaneous injections are indicated for the rare eosinophilic granulomatosis and polyangiitis, with the biologic administered every 4 weeks in either context. The release emphasizes that mepolizumab is not approved for acute bronchospasm or status asthmaticus. Health care professionals should first determine whether self-assisted administration or administration provided by a caregiver is appropriate, and then they should provide patients and/or caregivers with proper training in how to do so.

The approval is based on two open-label, single-arm, phase 3a studies that demonstrated successful administration was possible with these options among patients with severe eosinophilic asthma, at rates of 89%-95% in one study and 100% in the other. These results were followed by those of an open-label, parallel group, single-dose study that confirmed the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles of these new means of administration were comparable with those currently approved.

Mepolizumab is not indicated for those with a history of hypersensitivity to either mepolizumab or to the formulation’s excipients, such as anaphylaxis, angioedema, bronchospasm, hypotension, urticaria, or rash. Any reductions of inhaled corticosteroids after initiation of mepolizumab should be gradual and under the supervision of a health care professional. Some infections by herpes zoster have been observed. The most common adverse reactions (occurring in 3% or more of patients and more often than with placebo) during the first 24 weeks of treatment were headache (19%), injection site reaction (8%), back pain (5%), fatigue (5%), influenza (3%), urinary tract infection (3%), abdominal pain upper (3%), pruritus (3%), eczema (3%), and muscle spasm (3%). Full prescribing information can be found on the FDA website.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved two new formulations for the anti–interleukin-5 biologic mepolizumab (Nucala) for treatment of certain severe or rare forms of asthma, according to a press release from the drug’s developer. The biologic will now be available as an autoinjector and as a prefilled safety syringe.

The 100-mg subcutaneous mepolizumab injection is indicated as an add-on treatment for patients 12 years and older with severe eosinophilic asthma, and the three-dose 100-mg subcutaneous injections are indicated for the rare eosinophilic granulomatosis and polyangiitis, with the biologic administered every 4 weeks in either context. The release emphasizes that mepolizumab is not approved for acute bronchospasm or status asthmaticus. Health care professionals should first determine whether self-assisted administration or administration provided by a caregiver is appropriate, and then they should provide patients and/or caregivers with proper training in how to do so.

The approval is based on two open-label, single-arm, phase 3a studies that demonstrated successful administration was possible with these options among patients with severe eosinophilic asthma, at rates of 89%-95% in one study and 100% in the other. These results were followed by those of an open-label, parallel group, single-dose study that confirmed the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles of these new means of administration were comparable with those currently approved.

Mepolizumab is not indicated for those with a history of hypersensitivity to either mepolizumab or to the formulation’s excipients, such as anaphylaxis, angioedema, bronchospasm, hypotension, urticaria, or rash. Any reductions of inhaled corticosteroids after initiation of mepolizumab should be gradual and under the supervision of a health care professional. Some infections by herpes zoster have been observed. The most common adverse reactions (occurring in 3% or more of patients and more often than with placebo) during the first 24 weeks of treatment were headache (19%), injection site reaction (8%), back pain (5%), fatigue (5%), influenza (3%), urinary tract infection (3%), abdominal pain upper (3%), pruritus (3%), eczema (3%), and muscle spasm (3%). Full prescribing information can be found on the FDA website.

[email protected]