Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:The evaluation of antibiotic immediate-type hypersensitivity is intricate because of nonstandardized skin testing and challenge method variability. OBJECTIVE:To determine the safety outcomes and risk factors for antibiotic challenge reactions in patients reporting a history of antibiotic immediate-type hypersensitivity. METHODS:A 5-year retrospective review of patients evaluated for immediate-type antibiotic allergy was conducted. Data analyzed included patient demographics, index reaction details, and outcomes of skin testing and challenges, classified as single-step or multistep. RESULTS:Antibiotic hypersensitivity history was identified in 211 patients: 78% to penicillins, 10% to fluoroquinolones, 7.6% to cephalosporins, and 3.8% to carbapenems. In total, 179 patients completed the challenges (median age 67 years, range 50-76 years, 56% women), and compared with nonchallenged patients, they reported nonanaphylactic (P < .001) and remote index (P = .003) reactions. Sixteen patients (8.9%) experienced challenge reactions (5 of 28 for single-step challenge, 11 of 151 for multistep challenge), and 11 of these patients had negative skin testing results before the challenge. Challenge-reactive patients were significantly younger (P = .007), more often women (P = .036), and had additional reported antibiotic allergies (P = .005). No correlation was detected between the reported index and observed challenge reaction severities (κ = -0.05, 95% confidence interval -0.34 to 0.24). Anaphylactic rates were similar during single-step and multistep challenges (3.6% vs 3.3%). CONCLUSION:In the present population, younger women with multiple reported antibiotic allergies were at greatest risk for challenge reactions. Negative skin testing results did not exclude reactions, and index severity was not predictive of challenge outcome. The multistep and full-dose methods demonstrated a comparable reaction risk for anaphylaxis.

Hereditary angioedema (HAE) is a potentially life-threatening inherited disease characterized by attacks of skin swelling, severe abdominal pain, and upper airway swelling. Attacks typically begin in childhood, but the appropriate diagnosis is often missed. Attacks do not respond to epinephrine, antihistamines, or glucocorticoids. Recently, many effective drugs have been approved for treatment of adults with HAE, and the Medical Advisory Board of the HAE Patient's Association has developed and reported treatment recommendations for adults. Only 1 medication is approved for treatment of children <12 years of age, and there are no reported consensus recommendations for treatment of young children in the United States. The 11-member Medical Advisory Board, with extensive experience in the treatment of children, in concert with the leaders of the HAE Patient's Association, has developed these consensus recommendations to help in recognition, diagnosis, treatment of attacks, and prophylaxis of children with HAE.

Hereditary angioedema (HAE) is a chronic disease with a high burden of disease that is poorly understood and often misdiagnosed. Availability of treatments, including C1 esterase inhibitor (C1INH) replacement, ecallantide, and icatibant, marks a significant advance for HAE patients. We aimed to better understand the current state of HAE care, from a patient perspective, after the introduction of several novel therapies. One session of the United States Hereditary Angioedema Association 2013 patient summit was devoted to data collection for this study. Patients attending the summit were self-selected, and HAE diagnosis was self-reported. Survey questions assessed patient characteristics, burden of disease, and treatment. Participant responses were captured using an audience response system. We surveyed 149 (80%) type I and II HAE (HAE-C1INH) and 37 (20%) HAE with normal C1INH (HAE-nlC1INH) patients. HAE-C1INH (72%) and HAE-nlCINH patients (76%) equally reported that HAE had a significant impact on quality of life (QOL). A third of HAE-C1INH patients were diagnosed within one year of their first HAE attack, but another third reported a delay of more than 10 years. Most HAE-C1INH (88%) and HAE-nlC1INH (76%) patients had on-demand treatment available. HAE-C1INH patients frequently had an individual treatment plan (76%) compared with 50% of HAE-nlC1INH patients. Most HAE-C1INH patients went to the emergency department (ED) or were hospitalized less than once every six months (80%). Our findings show that HAE management is improving with good access to on-demand and prophylactic treatment options. However, HAE patients still have a significant burden of disease and continued research and educational efforts are needed.

Availability of effective treatment for acute attacks is expected to transform the care of hereditary angioedema (HAE) patients. We felt that it would be of interest to test these assumptions by examining the perceptions of HAE patients regarding the impact that these therapies have had on their lives. Patients at a United States HAE Association summit meeting were asked to rate the burden of HAE currently and compare by recall with 2009 when these therapies were not available. Questions covered five domains: psychological/emotional status, ability to carry out daily activities, fear of suffocation, worry about their children inheriting HAE, and medication side effects. Data were analyzed using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests or analysis of variance. Responses were obtained from 134 self-identified HAE subjects: 85 type I, 21 type II, and 28 with normal C1 inhibitor (C1INH). Burden of disease showed significant improvement in all domains except worry about children inheriting HAE. With the introduction of newer therapies, subjects with the most severe burden of illness improved more than those with milder burdens. However, significant burden of illness remained. The availability of the current treatments has substantially improved the quality of life for HAE patients in the United States, similar to a survey of Danish HAE patients regarding the introduction of home treatment. Nevertheless, our study shows that a substantial burden of illness remains for HAE patients.

Hereditary angioedema (HAE) is a rare genetic disease caused by a deficiency in functional C1-esterase inhibitor characterized by recurrent episodes of angioedema in the absence of associated urticaria. Subcutaneous swellings are experienced by virtually all patients with HAE, and dermatologists are likely to encounter this manifestation, requiring that they be knowledgeable about diagnosis and treatment options. Diagnosis of HAE is often delayed because several of the symptoms can mimic other disease states. Delays in diagnosis can lead to increased inappropriate treatment and decreased patient quality of life. Once a proper diagnosis is made, treatment needs to be targeted to the individual patient and includes on-demand therapy and an option for short- and long-term prophylaxis. On-demand therapy is required for all patients who are diagnosed with HAE and effective options include plasma-derived and recombinant C1 inhibitors, kallikrein inhibitors, and bradykinin B2-receptor antagonists. Options available for prophylaxis include plasma-derived C1 inhibitors, attenuated androgens, and antifibrinolytic agents, although the latter 2 options are associated with significant adverse events. This article reviews the diagnosis and options for effective management of patients with HAE.

BACKGROUND:Nanofiltered C1 inhibitor (human) is approved in the United States for routine prophylaxis of angioedema attacks in patients with hereditary angioedema, a rare disease caused by a deficiency of functional C1 inhibitor. OBJECTIVE:To assess the safety of escalating doses of nanofiltered C1 inhibitor (human) in patients who were not adequately controlled on the indicated dose (1000 U every 3 or 4 days). METHODS:Eligible patients had >1 attack/month over the 3 months before the trial. Doses were escalated to 1500 U every 3 or 4 days for 12 weeks, at which point, the patients were evaluated. If treatment was successful (≤1 attack/mo) or at the investigator's discretion, the patients entered a 3-month follow-up period. The patients with an average of >1 attack/month were eligible for further escalation to 2000 U and then 2500 U. RESULTS:Twenty patients started at 1500 U; 13 were escalated to 2000 U, and 12 were escalated to 2500 U. Eighteen patients reported adverse events. Two patients reported 4 serious adverse events (cerebral cystic hygroma, laryngeal angioedema attack, anemia, and bile duct stone) that were considered by investigators to be unrelated to treatment. Notably, there were no systemic thrombotic events or discontinuations due to adverse events. Fourteen patients were treated successfully (70%), continued to the follow-up period at the investigator's discretion, or experienced a reduction in attacks of >1.0/month. CONCLUSIONS:Dose escalation of nanofiltered C1 inhibitor (human) up to 2500 U was well tolerated and reduced attack frequency in the majority of patients.

When faced with a patient with recurrent swelling, a thorough laboratory evaluation to determine the underlying etiology ensues. When the laboratory work-up is unrevealing, health care practitioners are frequently left in a quandary. This review will attempt to provide up-to-date information on how to approach the diagnosis and management of angioedema in a patient with normal laboratory values. The subtypes that will be reviewed in detail include: hereditary angioedema with normal C1 inhibitor (HAE with normal C1INH), drug-induced angioedema, and idiopathic angioedema. We present literature to aid the physician in the diagnosis and treatment of these disorders.