Safety of aspirin desensitization in patients with reported aspirin allergy and cardiovascular disease

Aspirin Hypersensitivity in Patients With Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease

Low-dose aspirin remains the most commonly used antiplatelet agent among patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Aspirin hypersensitivity occurs in 1% to 5% of patients and is among the most frequent causes for prohibiting the use of aspirin, posing a significant dilemma on how to manage these patients in clinical practice. Aspirin hypersensitivity is often misinterpreted and confused with aspirin intolerance, with treatment approaches being often unclear and lacking specific recommendations. Aspirin desensitization and low-dose aspirin challenge have emerged as pragmatic, effective, and safe approaches in patients with suspected or confirmed aspirin hypersensitivity who require aspirin therapy, but they are underused systematically in clinical practice. Furthermore, there is confusion over alternative antiplatelet agents to be used in these patients. The pathophysiological mechanisms and classification of aspirin hypersensitivity, as well as alternative strategies and practical algorithms to overcome the need for aspirin use in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease with suspected aspirin hypersensitivity, are discussed.

NSAID: Current limits to prescription

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are commonly prescribed to alleviate pain and inflammation in conditions like arthritis, migraines, and post-operative recovery. Their mechanism involves inhibiting prostaglandins that contribute to inflammation. NSAIDs are categorized based on their structure, selectivity for COX-1 and COX-2 enzymes, and plasma half-life. They are effective in treating osteoarthritis, spondyloarthritis, and rheumatoid arthritis but might carry an elevated risk of adverse events. Despite their effectiveness, NSAIDs have limitations and risks that warrant cautious consideration. Extensive research has investigated their side effects, and this review aims to examine the current limitations of oral NSAID therapy, including safety profiles, specific scenarios where their use may not be appropriate, and gaps in knowledge. By critically evaluating these aspects, healthcare practitioners can make informed decisions about prescribing NSAIDs, optimizing patient outcomes while minimizing potential risks. This narrative review summarizes existing knowledge and underscores the importance of risk-benefit assessments in NSAID prescribing. Ultimately, the goal is to enhance the rational use of NSAIDs, maximizing benefits while mitigating adverse effects.

ASA Allergy and Desensitization Protocols in the Management of CAD: A Review of Literature

Acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) hypersensitivity still represents one of the major deals for patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASHD), especially for those requiring percutaneous coronary interventions in the absence of validated alternative options. Despite symptoms after ASA administration being reported in 6-20% of cases, true ASA allergy only represents a minority of the patients, pointing to the importance of challenge tests and potential strategies for tolerance induction. ASA desensitization protocols were proposed several decades ago, with accumulating the literature on their use in patients undergoing PCI either for chronic disease or acute coronary syndromes. Nevertheless, the promising results of the studies and meta-analyses have not been validated so far by the support of large-scale randomized trials or unique indications from guidelines. Therefore, ASA desensitization is still largely unapplied, leaving the management of ASA hypersensitivity to the individualized approach of cardiologists.

Management of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps in Samter triad by low-dose ASA desensitization or dupilumab

Samter triad is a chronic condition where patients suffer from intolerance to aspirin, recurring nasal polyposis and bronchial asthma. Causative treatment is often hard. Potential approaches are the daily intake of acetylsalicylic acid (ASA), shunting arachidonic acid into the lipoxygenase pathway, and a subsequent habituation to this constant inflammatory stimulus. Alternatively, the paramount interleukins 4 and 13 may be antagonized by the monoclonal antibody dupilumab. Hence, we evaluated the daily intake of 100 mg ASA and systemic dupilumab (300 mg s.c. every 2 weeks) therapy in refractory patients for its efficacy and compliance.We conducted a retrospective chart review for the efficacy and compliance of both continuous ASA desensitization and systemic dupilumab therapy for refractory patients.Thirty-one patients were included in this retrospective chart review, mean follow-up was 20.4 ± 15.7 months. All patients underwent ASA desensitization. Twenty-one patients had eventually discontinued therapy after 5.8 ± 4.5 months; 11 for its side effects, 12 for its inefficacy. Twenty patients developed sinunasal complaints soon thereafter. Ten patients were still undergoing desensitization (mean duration 15.3 ± 15.7 months). These patients had a higher prevalence of concomitant anti-asthmatic medication. Seventeen refractory patients underwent systemic dupilumab therapy. After 6.4 ± 2.7 months of treatment, sinunasal outcome test (68.1 ± 13.9 vs 20.1 ± 13.9) and visual analogue scales of overall complaints (8.7 ± 0.9 vs 2.2 ± 1.5) as well as endoscopic findings and olfactory function (brief smell identification test; 3.5 ± 2.6 vs 8.6 ± 2.4) all improved significantly.A considerable number of patients with Samter triad discontinued ASA desensitization, equally for ineffectiveness or side effects. If desensitization is to be effective, special care needs to be taken in respect to concomitant anti-asthmatic medication. Dupilumab is highly effective and safe in treating refractory patients.

Patient characterization and predictors of aspirin desensitization response

Background

Hypersensitivity to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) may limit the use of aspirin in patients with cardiovascular diseases. Aspirin desensitization, which is a resource-intensive process, can offer such patients access to aspirin through the induction of temporary tolerance to aspirin. However, there is limited information on aspirin desensitization response in patients undergoing aspirin desensitization for cardiac indications in Asia.

Objective

To characterize patients who have undergone aspirin desensitization, evaluate their responses to the procedure, and identify risk factor(s) associated with failure of aspirin desensitization.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective review of medical records of patients who underwent aspirin desensitization in Singapore General Hospital between 1 June 2014 and 31 October 2017. Chi-square or Fisher exact test were used to analyze categorical data while independent samples t test or Wilcoxon rank-sum test were used for continuous data where appropriate. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify predictors of aspirin desensitization failure.

Results

All 214 patients in our study had cardiovascular indications for aspirin, with angioedema being the most common type of index reaction experienced with NSAIDs (n = 104, 48.6%). One hundred sixty-five patients (77.1%) achieved successful aspirin desensitization. In the selected sample analysis of patients with true NSAID hypersensitivity (n = 163), an index reaction of angioedema to NSAIDs was found to be significantly associated with a higher risk of failing aspirin desensitization (odds ratio, 7.21; 95% confidence interval, 1.94–26.71).

Conclusion

Majority of the patients who underwent aspirin desensitization in our institution were able to achieve tolerance to aspirin. An index reaction of angioedema to NSAIDs was identified as a risk factor for aspirin desensitization failure. This information can aid in the risk stratification of patients undergoing aspirin desensitization and ensure efficient resource allocation for this procedure.

Aspirin Hypersensitivity in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. What Should We be Doing?

Aspirin plays a pivotal role in the management of patients with Coronary Artery Disease (CAD) with well-recognised benefits of reducing recurrent myocardial infarction and minimising the risk of stent thrombosis for those undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI). Dual antiplatelet therapy is mandated for patients undergoing PCI and typically consists of aspirin and a P2Y12 receptor antagonist. Aspirin hypersensitivity poses a significant clinical dilemma, as the safety and efficacy of oral antiplatelet combinations that exclude aspirin have not been validated. Although, genuine hypersensitivity to aspirin is encountered infrequently, it can be challenging when managing patients with concomitant CAD given the paucity of safe and effective alternatives. Aspirin desensitization is a potential and safe option but may not always be practical. This review aims to highlight the challenges of aspirin hypersensitivity in patients undergoing PCI and propose a treatment algorithm to address this issue in clinical practice.

Meta-Analysis of Acetylsalicylic Acid Desensitization in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome

Acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) hypersensitivity represents a clinical challenge in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients urgently requiring ASA for antiplatelet therapy. ASA desensitization has been reported with successful outcomes in cardiac patients. The aim of this review is to determine the safety and efficacy of ASA desensitization therapy in ACS patients. A PubMed database search was conducted for articles containing combinations of keywords, "aspirin desensitization" or "aspirin hypersensitivity" and "acute coronary syndrome" between January 1, 1990 and August 1, 2018. The primary end point was desensitization protocol success. Secondary end points included hypersensitivity adverse events and ASA discontinuation due to hypersensitivity adverse events at follow-up. Fifteen reports consisting of 480 ACS patients with previous hypersensitivity to ASA were included. The pooled desensitization success rate was 98.3% (95% confidence interval: 97.2% to 99.5%). There was no statistical difference in outcomes between protocols ≤ 2 hours and > 2 hours in duration (96.3[92.3 to 100.3]% vs 97.2[94.6 to 99.8]%; p = 0.71). Protocols with > 6 dose escalations were associated with higher success rates compared to those with ≤ 6 doses (99.2[97.9 to 100.4]% vs 95.4[93 to 97.8]%; p = 0.007). At follow-up between 1 and 46 months (mode 12 months), zero hypersensitivity adverse events were reported. Consequently, no ASA discontinuations were related to hypersensitivity adverse events. In conclusion, ASA desensitization therapy is safe and effective in patients with ACS. Protocols with > 6 dose escalations may be optimal for ASA desensitization in ACS patients.

Aspirin hypersensitivity in patients with coronary artery disease: linking pathophysiology to clinical practice

Dual antiplatelet therapy, consisting of aspirin and a P2Y12 receptor antagonist, has been the cornerstone of management in those undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, reducing stent thromboses and cardiovascular events. Given the pivotal role of aspirin in cardiovascular disease management, patients with aspirin hypersensitivity pose complex clinical challenges. Allergy to aspirin is reported in 1.5-2.6% of patients presenting with cardiac disease. Identification of the subtype of aspirin hypersensitivity will determine suitability for aspirin desensitization, dictate choice of desensitization protocol and inform risk management. Aspirin desensitization is an effective and viable clinical strategy, although it remains underutilised in clinical practice. Collaboration between cardiologists and immunologists should be strongly encouraged to facilitate optimal management of such patients. This review describes the complexity of managing patients with aspirin hypersensitivity in cardiac disease, the indications and risks of aspirin desensitization, and the approach to management of the minority of patients who are unsuitable for desensitization.

Aspirin challenge and desensitization: how, when and why

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To investigate the current approach to aspirin challenge (drug provocation) and/or desensitization in patients with histories of hypersensitivity reactions to it, particularly in those with cardiovascular diseases.

RECENT FINDINGS

The literature indicates that patients with coronary artery disease (CAD), including those with an acute coronary syndrome, may safely undergo low-dose aspirin challenge and/or desensitization. Recently, flowcharts regarding challenge/desensitization procedures with aspirin in patients with CAD and histories of aspirin hypersensitivity reactions have become available. Aspirin desensitization and continuous aspirin therapy constitute an effective option in patients with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug-exacerbated respiratory diseases (NERD) who have suboptimally controlled asthma or rhinosinusitis, or require multiple revision polypectomies.

SUMMARY

The use of aspirin has proven to reduce morbidity and mortality associated with CAD. There is a general consensus on aspirin's effectiveness in secondary prevention of CAD. Therefore, aspirin desensitization is necessary in patients with CAD and histories of hypersensitivity reactions to it. The effectiveness of aspirin desensitization and continuous therapy in patients with NERD has been shown in numerous studies. However, shared selection criteria of candidates for aspirin challenge/desensitization procedures, and simple and homogeneous protocols are necessary. Moreover, preventive safety measures are still needed in order to reduce the potential risks of these procedures.

Aspirin and Nonsteroidal Antiinflammatory Drugs Hypersensitivity and Management

Aspirin and nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are widely used in the United States and throughout the world for a variety of indications. Several unique hypersensitivity syndromes exist to this class of medications, making them one of the common reasons for consultation to the allergist. The lack of any laboratory-based diagnostic studies to assist in identifying the culprits in these reactions make evaluation of aspirin and NSAID hypersensitivity challenging. Identifying patients appropriate for oral challenge and/or desensitization protocols is the standard pragmatic approach to this issue when it arises.

Clinical approach on challenge and desensitization procedures with aspirin in patients with ischemic heart disease and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug hypersensitivity

BACKGROUND

Hypersensitivity to acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) constitutes a serious problem for subjects with coronary artery disease. In such subjects, physicians have to choose the more appropriate procedure between challenge and desensitization. As the literature on this issue is sparse, this study aimed to establish in these subjects clinical criteria for eligibility for an ASA challenge and/or desensitization.

METHODS

Collection and analysis of data on ASA challenges and desensitizations from 10 allergy centers, as well as consensus among the related physicians and an expert panel.

RESULTS

Altogether, 310 subjects were assessed; 217 had histories of urticaria/angioedema, 50 of anaphylaxis, 26 of nonimmediate cutaneous eruptions, and 17 of bronchospasm related to ASA/nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) intake. Specifically, 119 subjects had index reactions to ASA doses lower than 300 mg. Of the 310 subjects, 138 had an acute coronary syndrome (ACS), 101 of whom underwent desensitizations, whereas 172 suffered from a chronic ischemic heart disease (CIHD), 126 of whom underwent challenges. Overall, 163 subjects underwent challenges and 147 subjects underwent desensitizations; 86 of the latter had index reactions to ASA doses of 300 mg or less. Ten subjects reacted to challenges, seven at doses up to 500 mg, three at a cumulative dose of 110 mg. The desensitization failure rate was 1.4%.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with stable CIHD and histories of nonsevere hypersensitivity reactions to ASA/NSAIDs, an ASA challenge is advisable. Patients with an ACS and histories of hypersensitivity reactions to ASA, especially following doses lower than 100 mg, should directly undergo desensitization.

Rapid Aspirin Challenge in Patients with Aspirin Allergy and Acute Coronary Syndromes

Aspirin allergy in a patient with acute coronary syndrome represents one of the more urgent challenges an allergist may face. Adverse reactions to aspirin are reported in 1.5% of patients with coronary artery disease. A history of adverse reaction to aspirin often leads to unnecessary withholding of this medication or use of alternative antiplatelet therapy which may be inferior or more costly. Aspirin therapy has been shown to reduce morbidity and mortality in patients with coronary artery disease. Rapid aspirin challenge/desensitization in the aspirin allergic patient has been consistently shown to be both safe and successful in patients with acute coronary syndromes.

Aspirin-Exacerbated Diseases: Advances in Asthma with Nasal Polyposis, Urticaria, Angioedema, and Anaphylaxis

Aspirin-exacerbated diseases are important examples of drug hypersensitivities and include aspirin-exacerbated respiratory disease (AERD), aspirin- or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)-induced urticaria/angioedema, and aspirin- or NSAID-induced anaphylaxis. While each disease subtype may be distinguished by unique clinical features, the underlying mechanisms that contribute to these phenotypes are not fully understood. However, the inhibition of the cyclooxygenase-1 enzyme is thought to play a significant role. Additionally, eosinophils, mast cells, and their products, prostaglandins and leukotrienes, have been identified in the pathogenesis of AERD. Current diagnostic and treatment strategies for aspirin-exacerbated diseases remain limited, and continued research focusing on each of the unique hypersensitivity reactions to aspirin is essential. This will not only advance the understanding of these disease processes, but also lead to the subsequent development of novel therapeutics that patients who suffer from aspirin-induced reactions desperately need.

[ASA-intolerance syndrome and persistent rhinosinusitis : Differential diagnosis and treatment]

BACKGROUND

A differential diagnosis of persistent chronic rhinosinusitis is ASA-intolerance syndrome (AIS), also known as Aspirin®‑exacerbated respiratory disease (AERD), Samter-Trias (Samter's disease, Morbus Widal). Particularly in cases of frequent recurrency of nasal polyps in combination with bronchial asthma and hypersensitivity reactions to acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) and other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAR) can often be referred to an underlying AIS. The pathogenesis of this syndrome is attributed to a misallocation of the arachidonic acid metabolism, resulting in an increased leukotriene production.

METHODS

The diagnosis may be difficult in the early stages of the disease with incomplete triad of symptoms.

RESULTS

Therapy may consist of paranasal sinuses surgery, drug therapy and adaptive deactivation as the only causal treatment option for patients with AIS.

CONCLUSION

For adaptive desactivation, positive effects were actually shown even in patients with long-term recurrent or persistent complaints of chronic rhinosinusitis.

Efficacy and Safety of Available Protocols for Aspirin Hypersensitivity for Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Survey and Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

The most suitable approach for patients with aspirin hypersensitivity undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention remains to be assessed.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Pubmed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane were systematically searched for papers describing protocols about aspirin hypersensitivity in the percutaneous coronary intervention setting. Discharge from hospital with aspirin was the primary end point, whereas rates of adverse reactions being a secondary outcome. An online international survey was performed to critically analyze rates of aspirin hypersensitivity and its medical and interventional management. Eleven studies with 283 patients were included. An endovenous desensitization protocol was performed on one of them, with high efficacy rate (98%) and a low adverse reaction rate when compared with oral administration. No significant differences were reported among the oral protocols in terms of efficacy (less versus more fractionated [95.8% {95.4%-96.2%} versus 95.9% {95.2-96.5%}]), whereas higher incidence of rash and angioedema were reported for protocols with <6 doses escalation (2.6% [1.1%-4.1%] versus 2.6% [1.9%-3.2%]). In the survey, we collected answer from 86 physician of the 100 interviewed. Fifty-six percent of them managed aspirin hypersensitivity changing the therapeutic regimen (eg, clopidogrel monotherapy and indobufen). Despite the previous safety data, desensitization protocols were adopted by only 42% of surveyed cardiologist.

CONCLUSIONS

Available protocols for aspirin hypersensitivity are effective and safe, representing a feasible approach for patients needing dual antiplatelet therapy.

Approaches to the diagnosis and management of patients with a history of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug-related urticaria and angioedema

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)-induced urticarial and angioedema reactions are among the most commonly encountered drug hypersensitivity reactions in clinical practice. Three major clinical phenotypes of NSAID-induced acute skin reactions manifesting with angioedema, urticaria, or both have been distinguished: NSAID-exacerbated cutaneous disease, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug-induced urticaria/angioedema (NIUA), and single NSAID-induced urticaria and angioedema. In some patients clinical history alone might be sufficient to establish the diagnosis of a specific type of NSAID hypersensitivity, whereas in other cases oral provocation challenges are necessary to confirm the diagnosis. Moreover, classification of the type of cutaneous reaction is critical for proper management. For example, in patients with single NSAID-induced reactions, chemically nonrelated COX-1 inhibitors can be safely used. However, there is cross-reactivity between the NSAIDs in patients with NSAID-exacerbated cutaneous disease and NIUA, and thus only use of selective COX-2 inhibitors can replace the culprit drug if the chronic treatment is necessary, although aspirin desensitization will allow for chronic treatment with NSAIDs in some patients with NIUA. In this review we present a practical clinical approach to the patient with NSAID-induced urticaria and angioedema.