From the Guidelines
The risk of immunotherapy for inhalant allergy is considered low, but it can induce severe and potentially life-threatening reactions, such as anaphylaxis, on rare occasions. To manage this risk, it is essential to assess the patient's asthma status and discuss all potential risks before receiving allergy immunotherapy (AIT) 1. The healthcare provider should know how to recognize and treat anaphylaxis, which can affect different parts of the body, and have a plan in place for emergency situations.
Key Considerations
- Anaphylaxis can occur with both subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) 1
- Patients should be educated on the signs and symptoms of anaphylaxis and how to use epinephrine, the main treatment for anaphylaxis 1
- Regular monitoring and follow-up appointments are crucial to minimize the risk of adverse reactions
- The benefits of immunotherapy should be weighed against the potential risks, and patients should be informed of the possible consequences of treatment 1
Risk Assessment
The risk of immunotherapy can be assessed by evaluating the patient's medical history, current health status, and potential risk factors. This includes:
- Asthma status
- History of anaphylaxis or other severe allergic reactions
- Presence of other medical conditions that may increase the risk of adverse reactions
- Use of medications that may interact with immunotherapy By carefully assessing these factors and developing a personalized treatment plan, healthcare providers can minimize the risk of adverse reactions and ensure the safe and effective use of immunotherapy for inhalant allergy 1.
From the Research
Risk Assessment and Management
- Risk assessment is a crucial step in various fields, including healthcare and pharmaceutical development, to minimize harm and ensure safety 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
- In the context of first-in-human starting dose selection, a data-driven and risk-based approach is recommended to balance safety and efficiency 2
- Medication errors are a significant risk in healthcare settings, and interventions such as pharmacist-led medication reconciliation, computerized medication reconciliation, and computerized physician order entry can reduce prescribing and administration errors 3
- Screening tests and interventions for substance use disorders can help identify and manage at-risk individuals in medical settings 4, 5
- Assessing the risk of bias in systematic reviews is essential to ensure the validity and reliability of the findings, and recommendations have been developed to promote transparency and reproducibility in risk-of-bias assessments 6
Risk Factors and Interventions
- Various risk factors, such as high perceived safety risks, can influence the selection of first-in-human starting doses 2
- Interventions, such as brief interventions for at-risk drinkers, can be effective in managing substance use disorders 4
- A single-question screening test for drug use has been validated for use in primary care settings 5
- Risk-of-bias assessment tools and guidance are available to help reviewers evaluate the quality of evidence and make informed decisions 6
Implications and Future Directions
- The use of a data-driven and risk-based approach in first-in-human starting dose selection can help minimize risk to trial subjects and improve drug development efficiency 2
- Further research is needed to develop and validate effective interventions for reducing medication errors and substance use disorders 3, 4, 5
- The development of standardized risk-of-bias assessment tools and guidance can help promote transparency and reproducibility in systematic reviews 6