Search

Background: Influenza vaccines are effective in decreasing hospitalizations and mortality related to influenza and its complications. However, the Vaccine Coverage Rate of influenza remains low and multifaceted efforts are required to improve it. The aim of this study was to assess the impact on influenza vaccine perception using a digital tool among outpatients and health care workers (HCWs)., Methods: A study was performed among outpatients and the HCWs of 23 hospital departments from 4 hospitals affiliated to Lyon university Hospitals (France), between October 2022 and February 2023. By scanning QR (Quick Response) codes, displayed on posters for patients, their companions, as well as in the letters sent to HCWs, users accessed anonymously to a web-application (ELEFIGHT®), which provided information on influenza and invited them to initiate a discussion on influenza prevention with their physicians during the consultation. Patients were also invited to complete a questionnaire regarding their perception of influenza vaccination before and after reading the information on ELEFIGHT®. The retention rate (RR = proportion of people who remain on the page for >2 s), the conversion rate (CR = proportion of people who click on the "Call-To-Action" button) and the absolute variation (difference in the perception before/after) and relative variation (absolute change as a percentage of the initial perception) in perception regarding influenza vaccination before and after consulting the application were calculated., Results: 3791 scans were performed by 3298 patients and/or their companions with a RR of 52% and a CR of 55.1% and 253 scans by 221 HCWs with a RR of 71.2% and a CR of 115.3%. Participants spent an average of 47 s on the application. The questionnaire on influenza vaccination perception was completed by 1533 participants (46.5%); 1390 (90.7%) maintained the same position (neutral, favorable or unfavorable) on this vaccination before and after consulting the application. The relative variations in favor of vaccination were + 7.2% (unfavorable then favorable) and + 19.8% (neutral then favorable)., Conclusion: This study suggests that a facilitated direct access to medical information through QR codes disseminated in health settings can help nudge people to foster their awareness of influenza and its prevention. Future deployments in a similar context or to other populations could be envisaged. Other vaccine-preventable and/or chronic diseases could also be the target of similar projects as part of public health programs., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Nagham Khanafer, Florence Ader, Frédéric Berard, Françoise Bouhour, Roland Chapurlat, Sybil Charriere, Cyrille Confavreux, Gilles Devouassoux, Emmanuel Disse, Jean-Pierre Fauvel, Denis Fouque, Herve Ghesquieres, Sophie Hyvert, Anne Jolivot, Gilles Leboucher, Catherine Lombard, Géraldine Martin-Gaujard, Jean-Francois Mornex, Marc Nicolino, Nathalie Obadia, Gérald Raverot, Philippe Reix, Alain Ruffion, Pascal Seve, Eric Truy, Fabien Zoulim and Philippe Vanhems have no conflicts of interest related to this study to declare. Catherine Planckaert, Rym Bouhalila, Camille Mena and Nadège Trehet Mandel have been mandated and paid by the HCL. Sylvain Oudot, Margot Maligeay, Joséphine Clamens and Marie-Pierre Ayala are employed by Sanofi., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

In 2010, the United States Human and Health Services (US HHS) and the European Union's (EU) Directorate General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology signed a memorandum of understanding to stimulate cooperation surrounding health-related information communications technology. The key project that emerged from this agreement is the International Patient Summary (IPS), intended to provide succinct clinically relevant patient summaries, which are generalizable and condition-independent, that can be readily used by all clinicians for the care of patients. Although allergies are included in the main information required by the IPS library and framework, it is misrepresented which leads to underdiagnosis or misdiagnosis of patients suffering from allergic and hypersensitivity conditions (A/H). The French and Montpellier World Health Organization (WHO) Collaborating Centres have provided arguments for supporting representation of A/H in the IPS. These are based on the relevance of the new classification of A/H in the WHO International Classification of Diseases 11th version (ICD-11), and the need for alignment of eHealth tools with harmonized health information. We first present the A/H in the IPS initiative with the mission of producing an international information system that can be used globally in electronic health records to standardize clinical diagnoses and facilitate communication between clinicians caring for patients with A/H diseases. It is believed this initiative will provide a strong voice for the allergy community and an effective process for improving the quality of health data that will optimize medical care for our patients worldwide., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they do not have any conflict of interests related to the contents of this article. PI and consultant for: Novartis, Genentech, Sanofi Regeneron, Astra Zeneca/Amgen, GSK, Allakos, Escient/Incyte, Celldex, Areteia, Takeda/Shire, CSL Behring, Biocryst, Pharming, Kalvista, Ionis, Intellia, Biomarin, Astria, Jaspar., (© 2024 The Authors.)

Background: Many patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) do not achieve complete control of their symptoms with current available treatments. In a dose-finding phase 2b study, ligelizumab improved urticaria symptoms in patients with H1-antihistamine (H1-AH) refractory CSU. Here, we report the efficacy and safety outcomes from two ligelizumab phase 3 studies., Methods: PEARL-1 and PEARL-2 were identically designed randomised, double-blind, active-controlled and placebo-controlled parallel-group studies. Patients aged 12 years or older with moderate-to-severe H1-AH refractory CSU were recruited from 347 sites in 46 countries and randomly allocated in a 3:3:3:1 ratio via Interactive Response Technology to 72 mg ligelizumab, 120 mg ligelizumab, 300 mg omalizumab, or placebo, dosed every 4 weeks, for 52 weeks. Patients allocated to placebo received 120 mg ligelizumab from week 24. The primary endpoint was change-from-baseline (CFB) in weekly Urticaria Activity Score (UAS7) at week 12, and was analysed in all eligible adult patients according to the treatment assigned at random allocation. Safety was assessed throughout the study in all patients who received at least one dose of the study drug. The studies were registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03580369 (PEARL-1) and NCT03580356 (PEARL-2). Both trials are now complete., Findings: Between Oct 17, 2018, and Oct 26, 2021, 2057 adult patients were randomly allocated across both studies (72 mg ligelizumab n=614; 120 mg ligelizumab n=616; 300 mg omalizumab n=618, and placebo n=209). A total of 1480 (72%) of 2057 were female, and 577 (28%) of 2057 were male. Mean UAS7 at baseline across study groups ranged from 29·37 to 31·10. At week 12, estimated treatment differences in mean CFB-UAS7 were as follows: for 72 mg ligelizumab versus placebo, -8·0 (95% CI -10·6 to -5·4; PEARL-1), -10·0 (-12·6 to -7·4; PEARL-2); 72 mg ligelizumab versus omalizumab 0·7 (-1·2 to 2·5; PEARL-1), 0·4 (-1·4 to 2·2; PEARL-2); 120 mg ligelizumab versus placebo -8·0 (-10·5 to -5·4; PEARL-1), -11·1 (-13·7 to -8·5; PEARL-2); 120 mg ligelizumab versus omalizumab 0·7 (-1·1 to 2·5; PEARL-1), -0·7 (-2·5 to 1·1; PEARL-2). Both doses of ligelizumab were superior to placebo (p<0·0001), but not to omalizumab, in both studies. No new safety signals were identified for ligelizumab or omalizumab., Interpretation: In the phase 3 PEARL studies, ligelizumab demonstrated superior efficacy versus placebo but not versus omalizumab. The safety profile of ligelizumab was consistent with previous studies., Funding: Novartis Pharma., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests MM is or recently was a speaker, an adviser for, or has received research funding from Amgen, Allakos, Aralez, AstraZeneca, Celldex, FAES, Genentech, GI Innovation, Kyowa Kirin, Leo Pharma, Menarini, Novartis, Moxie, MSD, Roche, Sanofi, Third Harmonic, UCB, and Uriach. LFE is or recently was a speaker or adviser for Novartis, Sanofi, and AbbVie, and has received research support from Novartis and Sanofi. AMG-A reports roles as a medical adviser for Uriach Pharma, Sanofi, Genentech, Novartis, FAES, GSK, AMGEN, Thermo Fisher, and has received research grants supported by Uriach Pharma, Novartis, and Instituto Carlos III- FEDER; she also participates in educational activities for Uriach Pharma, Novartis, Genentech, Menarini, LEO-PHARMA, GSK, MSD, Almirall, AVENE, and Sanofi. GS has received research support from Aimmune, Amgen, AstraZeneca, DBV technologies, Genentech, Kedrion, Leo Pharma, Novartis, Nuvo Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, Stallergenes, Merck, and Schering-Plough; and is a medical adviser or has received payment for lectures from Merck, Novartis, CSL Behring, Pfizer, Anaphylaxis Canada, the Allergy Asthma and Immunology Society of Ontario, and the Canadian Hereditary Angioedema Network. MH has received lecture or consultation fees from TAIHO Pharmaceutical, Novartis, MSD, Teikoku Seiyaku, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, Kaken Pharmaceutical, Kyorin Pharmaceutical, Uriach, Sanofi, and Kyowa-Kirin and GI Innovation. SS received grant, research, or clinical trial support from the National Institutes of Health, ITN, Novartis, Regeneron, and is a consultant or advisery board member for Genentech, Novartis, Medimmune, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Allakos, Eli Lily, and Gossamer Bio. CG has recently been an adviser for Celltrion and has participated in an advisery board for Sanofi. DF is, or recently was, a speaker or adviser for Novartis, Sanofi, AbbVie, Takeda, AstraZeneca, CSL Behring, and Roche. DR received fees as lecturer and advisery board member for Novartis, Leo, Lilly, MSD, UCB, Janssen, Sanofi, Menarini, Genesis pharma, and AbbVie. FB has received payment or honoraria as speaker fees from Novartis. GWC reports having received research grants, as well as being a lecturer or having received advisery board fees, from Menarini, Alk-Abello', Allergy Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi Farmaceutici, Genentech, Guidotti-Malesci, GSK, Hal Allergy, Mylan, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dome, Mundipharma, Novartis, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, Sanofi-Genzyme, Stallergenes-Greer, UCB Pharma, Uriach Pharma, Valeas, and Vibor-Pharma. HR reports receiving speaker's fees, advisery board fees or funds for research to the institution from Novartis Pharma, Pharming, Sanofi-Genzyme, Third Harmonic, and Leo Pharma. CI reports having received research or clinical trial support, or fees for lectures from Novartis, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Takeda, and Stallergenes Greer. JCS reports receiving fees for being consultant or advisery board member for Leo Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi-Genzyme, Trevi, UCB, and Vifor; for being speaker for AbbVie, Almirall, Alvotech, Janssen-Cilag, Eli-Lilly, Leo Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi-Genzyme; for being the investigator in clinical trials for AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, AnaptysBio, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celtrion, Galderma, Galapagos, Helm, Kliniksa, Incyte, InfraRX, Janssen-Cilag, Leo Pharma, Medimmune, Menlo Therapeutics, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, UCB, Teva, and Trevi. JAB reports grants and personal fees from Novartis, AstraZeneca, Allakos, Amgen, Celldex, Genentech, and Sanofi Regeneron outside the submitted work. JGP has received travel support, speakers' honoraria, and educational grants from Novartis, Sanofi Regeneron, Takeda, Pharming, and CSL Behring. KK is or recently was a speaker or adviser for Novartis, Sanofi, Takeda, and A Menarini, and has received research grants from Novartis. LA is or recently was a speaker, adviser, or has received research funding from AstraZeneca, GSK, Novartis, OM-Pharma, Regeneron, Shire, Takeda, and Sanofi-Genzyme. PS is or recently was a speaker, adviser, or has received research funding from AbbVie, Allergika, Almirall, Amgen, Beiersdorf, Biocryst, Biogen, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Celgene, CSL-Behring, Eli-Lilly, Galderma, Hexal, Janssen, Klinge, Klosterfrau, LEO-Pharma, LETI-Pharma, L'Oreal, Medice, Novartis, Octapharma, Pfizer, Pflüger, Pharming, Pierre Fabre, Regeneron, Shire, Takeda, Regeneron, Sanofi-Genzyme, und UCB Pharma. RS is Director and Founder of Samson Medical Pty, and serves on the pharmaceutical advisery board of Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Leo Pharmaceutical, and reports being on the speaker bureau of Pfizer, AbbVie, and Novartis. He has also been principal investigator in clinical trials for AbbVie, Aerotech, Akesobio, Amgen, Arcutis, Arena, Ascend AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biotherapeutics Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myer Squibb, Celgene, Coherus BioSciences, Connect, Demira, Eli Lilly, Galderma, GSK, F. Hoffman–La Roche, Janssen, MedImmune, Merck, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis, Oncobiologics, Pfizer, Principia, Regeneron, Roche, Reistone Biopharma, Samson Clinical, Sanofi-Genzyme, Sun Pharma UCB, Valeant, and Zai Labs. He is President of the Australasian Hair and Wool Research Society, Vice President of the International Society of Dermatology, and The International Academy of Dermatology. SG has consulted or advised for Novartis and IgGenix. SFT is or recently was a speaker, adviser for, or has received research funding from AbbVie, Almirall, Boehringer Ingelheim, CSL, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Leo Pharma, Novartis, Sanofi, Pfizer, UCB, and Union Therapeutics. TT received clinical trial support from Novartis, AstraZeneca, Celldex Therapeutics, Genentech, and GSK. YMY has received research or clinical trial support from Novartis, Amgen, Yuhan, Takeda, and Daewoong ABa, DM, and ES are employees of Novartis Pharmaceuticals, East Hanover, New Jersey, NJ, USA. EH is an employee of Novartis Institutes for Biomedical Research, China. VV is an employee of Novartis Healthcare Private, Hyderabad, India. ABu, KL, MP, and TS are employees of Novartis Pharma, Basel, Switzerland. KG, JL, and OU report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Coronavirus disease (COVID)-19 is characterised in particular by vascular inflammation with platelet activation and endothelial dysfunction. During the pandemic, therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE) was used to reduce the cytokine storm in the circulation and delay or prevent ICU admissions. This procedure consists in replacing the inflammatory plasma by fresh frozen plasma from healthy donors and is often used to remove pathogenic molecules from plasma (autoantibodies, immune complexes, toxins, etc.). This study uses an in vitro model of platelet-endothelial cell interactions to assess changes in these interactions by plasma from COVID-19 patients and to determine the extent to which TPE reduces such changes. We noted that exposure of an endothelial monolayer to plasmas from COVID-19 patients post-TPE induced less endothelial permeability compared to COVID-19 control plasmas. Yet, when endothelial cells were co-cultured with healthy platelets and exposed to the plasma, the beneficial effect of TPE on endothelial permeability was somewhat reduced. This was linked to platelet and endothelial phenotypical activation but not with inflammatory molecule secretion. Our work shows that, in parallel to the beneficial removal of inflammatory factors from the circulation, TPE triggers cellular activation which may partly explain the reduction in efficacy in terms of endothelial dysfunction. These findings provide new insights for improving the efficacy of TPE using supporting treatments targeting platelet activation, for instance., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (© 2023 Ebermeyer, Hequet, Berard, Prier, Eyraud, Arthaud, Heestermans, Duchez, Guironnet- Paquet, Berthelot, Cognasse and Hamzeh-Cognasse.)

Background: Cancer patients are being exposed to antineoplastic drugs more frequently and for longer periods, resulting in a higher risk of hypersensitivity reactions. The aim of this study was to assess the pharmaceutical time and direct cost of drug allergy explorations following immediate hypersensitivity reactions to antineoplastic agents., Methods: A micro-costing method was used to collect data on consumption of human and material resources for allergy exploration preparations. The monetisation was carried out on the basis of prices and hourly wage costs applied in 2018. The number and type of allergy explorations prepared by the pharmacy as well as nature of antineoplastic drugs tested, and the number of culprit drugs reintroductions were collected., Results: Almost 1.5 h is required to realise allergy tests for one patient including pharmacist time for prescription analysis and pharmacy technician's time for tests preparation. The mean manufacturing cost of these tests is estimated at €62.87 (€57.82-65.49) per culprit drug for one patient. Programming patients according to culprit drugs tested allows rationalising healthcare provider time and increasing efficiency. From January 2010 to December 2018, 277 patients were tested and 490 allergy explorations were performed, corresponding to more than 5000 preparations. Mostly, the culprit drug could be reintroduced ( n  = 383, 78.2%) allowing patients to receive the best possible treatment., Conclusion: Management of hypersensitivity reactions is constantly progressing, as it contributes to improving patient care in oncology. This activity is time-consuming for the pharmacy team but allows patients with previous hypersensitivity reaction to continue effective treatment.

Red blood cell exchanges are frequently used to treat and prevent cerebrovascular complications in patients with sickle cell anemia (SCA). However, the low weight of young children represents serious concerns for this procedure. The Spectra Optia device can perform automatic priming using red blood cells (RBCs) (RCE/RBC-primed) which could allow RBC exchanges (RCE) to be performed in young children without hypovolemic complications, but this method requires evaluation. We prospectively analyzed the clinical safety of the RCE/RBC-primed procedure in 12 SCA low-weight children under either a chronic RCE program or emergency treatment over 65 sessions. We monitored grade 2 adverse events (AEs) such as a decrease in blood pressure, increase in heart rate, fainting sensation, or transfusion reactions and identified the critical times during the sessions in which AEs could occur. Post-apheresis hematocrit (Hct) and a fraction of cell remaining (FCR) values were compared to the expected values. We also compared the impact of automatic RCE ( n = 7) vs. RCE/RBC-primed ( n = 8) on blood viscosity and RBC rheology. A low incidence of complications was observed in the 65 RCE sessions with only seven episodes of transient grade 2 AEs. Post-apheresis Hct and FCR reached expected values with the RCE/RBC-primed method. Both the automatic and priming procedures improved RBC deformability and decreased the sickling tendency during deoxygenation. Blood rheological features improved in both RCE/RBC-primed and automatic RCE without priming conditions. The RCE/RBC-primed procedure provides blood rheological benefits, and is safe and efficient to treat, notably in young children with SCA in prophylactic programs or curatively when a SCA complication occurs., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Hequet, Boisson, Joly, Revesz, Kebaili, Gauthier, Renoux, Creppy, Nader, Nicolas, Berard, Cognasse, Vocanson, Bertrand and Connes.)