Characterization of aspirin allergies in patients with coronary artery 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.

Aspirin hypersensitivity: a practical guide for cardiologists

Aspirin has been known for a long time and currently stays as a cornerstone of antithrombotic therapy in cardiovascular disease. In patients with either acute or chronic coronary syndromes undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention aspirin is mandatory in a dual antiplatelet therapy regimen for prevention of stent thrombosis and/or new ischaemic events. Aspirin is also currently a first-option antithrombotic therapy after an aortic prosthetic valve replacement and is occasionally required in addition to oral anticoagulants after implantation of a mechanical valve. Presumed or demonstrated aspirin hypersensitivity is a main clinical problem, limiting the use of a life-saving medication. In the general population, aspirin hypersensitivity has a prevalence of 0.6%-2.5% and has a plethora of clinical presentations, ranging from aspirin-exacerbated respiratory disease to anaphylaxis. Although infrequent, when encountered in clinical practice aspirin hypersensitivity poses for cardiologists a clinical dilemma, which should never be trivialized, avoiding-as much as possible-omission of the drug. We here review the epidemiology of aspirin hypersensitivity, provide an outline of pathophysiological mechanisms and clinical presentations, and review management options, starting from a characterization of true aspirin allergy-in contrast to intolerance-to suggestion of desensitization protocols.

Allergy Electronic Health Record Documentation: A 2022 Work Group Report of the AAAAI Adverse Reactions to Drugs, Biologicals, and Latex Committee

The allergy section of the electronic health record (EHR) is ideally reviewed and updated by health care workers during routine outpatient visits, emergency room visits, inpatient hospitalizations, and surgical procedures. This EHR section has the potential to help proactively and comprehensively avoid exposures to drugs, contact irritants, foods, and other agents for which, based on an individual's medical history and/or genetics, there is increased risk for adverse outcomes with future exposures. Because clinical decisions are made and clinical decision support is triggered based on allergy details from the EHR, the allergy module needs to provide meaningful, accurate, timely, and comprehensive allergy information. Although the allergy section of the EHR must meet these requirements to guide appropriate clinical decisions and treatment plans, current EHR allergy modules have not achieved this standard. We urge EHR vendors to collaborate with allergists to optimize and modernize allergy documentation. A work group within the Adverse Reactions to Drugs, Biologicals, and Latex Committee of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology was formed to create recommendations for allergy documentation in the EHR. Whereas it is recognized that the term "allergy" is often used incorrectly because most adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are not true immune-mediated hypersensitivity reactions, "allergy" in this article includes allergies and hypersensitivities as well as side effects and intolerances. Our primary objective is to provide guidance for the current state of allergy documentation in the EHR. This guidance includes clarification of the definition of specific ADR types, reconciliation of confirmed ADRs, and removal of disproved or erroneous ADRs. This document includes a proposal for the creation, education, and implementation of a drug allergy labeling system that may allow for more accurate EHR documentation for improved patient safety.

Coronary Artery Disease and Aspirin Intolerance: Background and Insights on Current Management

Aspirin is one of the most widely used medications across the global healthcare system and is the foundation in treating ischemic heart disease, as well as secondary prevention for ischemic and valvular heart disease. Challenges arise in treating patients with cardiovascular disease who have concomitant aspirin intolerance. Through an extensive review of the literature, we provide a comprehensive background on the pharmacology of aspirin, the mechanisms behind aspirin intolerance, the importance of aspirin in cardiovascular disease, and the management of aspirin intolerance in both acute coronary syndrome and stable coronary artery disease. Our review includes a multidisciplinary approach from the internist, allergist/immunologist, and cardiologist when evaluating this important patient population.

Cilostazol combined with P2Y12 receptor inhibitors: A substitute antiplatelet regimen for aspirin-intolerant patients undergoing percutaneous coronary stent implantation

Background

Cilostazol combined with P2Y₁₂ receptor inhibitor has been used as a substitute regimen for aspirin‐intolerant patients undergoing percutaneous coronary stent implantation on a small scale. Its exact impact on platelet functions and clinical benefits of aspirin‐intolerant patients is unknown.

Hypothesis

Cilostazol combined with P2Y₁₂ receptor inhibitors could be used as a substitute antiplatelet regimen for aspirin‐intolerant patients undergoing percutaneous coronary stent implantation.

Methods

In this multicenter prospective cohort trial, patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary stent implantation were assigned to the cilostazol group (cilostazol plus P2Y₁₂ receptor inhibitors), based on aspirin intolerance criteria, or the aspirin group (aspirin plus P2Y₁₂ receptor inhibitors). Platelet PAC‐1, CD62p, and vasodilator‐stimulated phosphoprotein phosphorylation (VASP‐P) were detected by flow cytometry. The primary endpoints were major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) including all‐cause death, acute myocardial infarction, emerging arrhythmia, nonfatal stroke, and heart failure. The secondary endpoints were the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) bleeding events.

Results

One hundred and fifty‐four aspirin‐intolerant percutaneous coronary stent implantation patients and 154 matched aspirin‐tolerant patients from a total of 2059 percutaneous coronary stent implantation patients were enrolled. The relative activation level of PAC‐1, CD62p, and platelet reaction index reflected by the VASP‐P test were similar in the two groups (p > .05). After 12 months of follow‐up, the incidence of all‐cause death was 1.9% in the cilostazol group and 1.3% in the aspirin group (risk ratio [RR], 1.500; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.254–8.852; p = 1.000); the incidence of acute myocardial infarction was 0.6% in the cilostazol group and 1.3% in the aspirin group (RR, 0.500; 95% CI, 0.046–5.457; p = 1.000). No significant difference was seen in other MACCE events, or in any types of BARC bleeding events.

Conclusions

Cilostazol combined with P2Y₁₂ inhibitors was not inferior to aspirin‐based standard therapy and could be used as a reasonable substitute antiplatelet regimen for aspirin‐intolerant patients undergoing percutaneous coronary stent implantation, but again with limitations, which required a larger sample and longer follow‐up to confirm its efficacy.

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.

The efficacy and safety of cilostazol as an alternative to aspirin in Chinese patients with aspirin intolerance after coronary stent implantation: a combined clinical study and computational system pharmacology analysis

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAT) with aspirin and clopidogrel is the standard regimen to achieve rapid platelet inhibition and prevent thrombotic events. Currently, little information is available regarding alternative antiplatelet therapy in patients with an allergy or intolerance to aspirin. Although cilostazol is already a common alternative to aspirin in clinical practice in China, its efficacy and safety remain to be determined. We retrospectively analyzed 613 Chinese patients who had undergone primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Among them, 405 patients received standard DAT (aspirin plus clopidogrel) and 205 patients were identified with intolerance to aspirin and received alternative DAT (cilostazol plus clopidogrel). There were no significant differences between the two groups in their baseline clinical characteristics. The main outcomes of the study included major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) and bleeding events during 12 months of follow-up. The MACEs endpoint was reached in 10 of 205 patients treated with cilostazol (4.9%) and in 34 of 408 patients treated with aspirin (8.3%). No statistically significant difference was observed in MACEs between the two groups. However, patients in the cilostazol group had less restenosis than did patients in the aspirin group (1.5% vs 4.9%, P=0.035). The occurrence of bleeding events tended to be lower in the cilostazol group (0.49% vs 2.7%, P=0.063). These clinical observations were further analyzed using network system pharmacology analysis, and the outcomes were consistent with clinical observations and preclinical data reports. We conclude that in Chinese patients with aspirin intolerance undergoing coronary stent implantation, the combination of clopidogrel with cilostazol may be an efficacious and safe alternative to the standard DAT regimen.

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.

Pharmacological Management of Elderly Patients with Asthma-Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Overlap Syndrome: Room for Speculation?

Asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are two distinct diseases that share a condition of chronic inflammation of the airways and bronchial obstruction. In clinical settings, it is not rare to come across patients who present with clinical and functional features of both diseases, posing a diagnostic dilemma. The overlap condition has been termed asthma-COPD overlap syndrome (ACOS), and mainly occurs in individuals with long-standing asthma, especially if they are also current or former smokers. Patients with ACOS have poorer health-related quality of life and a higher exacerbation rate than subjects with asthma or COPD alone. Whether ACOS is a distinct nosological entity with genetic variants or rather a condition of concomitant diseases that overlap is still a matter of debate. However, there is no doubt that extended life expectancy has increased the prevalence of asthma and COPD in older ages, and thus the probability that overlap conditions occur in clinical settings. In addition, age-associated changes of the lung create the basis for the two entities to converge on the same subject. ACOS patients may benefit from a stepwise treatment similar to that of asthma and COPD; however, the proposed therapeutic algorithms are only speculative and extrapolated from studies that are not representative of the ACOS population. Inhaled corticosteroids are the mainstay of therapy, and always in conjunction with long-acting bronchodilators. The potential heterogeneity of the overlap syndrome in terms of inflammatory features (T helper-1 vs. T helper-2 pathways) may be responsible for the different responses to treatments. The interaction between respiratory drugs and concomitant diseases should be carefully evaluated. Similarly, the effect of non-respiratory drugs, such as aspirin, statins, and β-blockers, on lung function needs to be properly assessed.

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.

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.

Contemporary antiplatelet therapy in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention

The proper use of antiplatelet agents in the cardiac catheterization laboratory is important for ensuring optimal results in patients undergoing percutaneous revascularization. Understanding the mechanisms by which these drugs exerts their effects is important for both interventional and non-interventional cardiologists. The effects of these agents on platelet function can be assessed and monitored using a variety of commercially available laboratory assays but so far these tests have not been adopted in routine clinical practice. Currently, aspirin, thienopyridines and glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors are the primary types of antiplatelet drugs being utilized. The use of these drugs and of several newer antiplatelet drugs in the treatment of patients undergoing percutaneous revascularization in the cardiac catheterization laboratory will be discussed, especially in the light of the recently published guidelines.