Hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) to nondextran iron products (NDIPs) are rare, but can manifest with severe signs and symptoms. Predisposing risk factors are not well understood. To characterize patients with HSRs to NDIPs, with a special focus on possible risk factors. We analyzed clinical characteristics of patients with HSRs to NDIPs referred to our allergy division between 2007 and 2019 compared with tolerant controls, including the type of the eliciting NDIP, severity and characteristics of the HSR, atopy status, history of allergies and urticaria, laboratory and skin test results, and outcome of reexposure with NDIPs. We evaluated the data of 59 patients and 21 controls. Sixteen patients and 4 controls received the NDIP iron sucrose and 41 patients and 15 controls received ferric carboxymaltose. In 2 patients and in 2 controls, the culprit NDIP was not known. Twenty-seven patients (46%) experienced an anaphylactic reaction grade I, 15 (25%) a grade II reaction, and 17 (29%) a grade III reaction according to Ring and Messmer. On analyzing the history, we found that 22 patients (37%) and 3 controls (14%) reported previous HSRs to other medications. Interestingly, more than half the patients (n= 35 [59%]) compared with only 7 controls (33%) reported an episode of any type of urticaria in their previous history. Most patients (n= 15 [79%]) tolerated reexposure of an NDIP using a low-reactogenic administration protocol. A history of drug hypersensitivity and urticaria represent potential risk factors for HSRs to NDIPs. On the basis of our findings, we propose an algorithm for practical management of patients receiving NDIPs aiming to prevent HSRs.A history of drug hypersensitivity and urticaria represent potential risk factors for HSRs to NDIPs. buy AP-III-a4 On the basis of our findings, we propose an algorithm for practical management of patients receiving NDIPs aiming to prevent HSRs. Anaphylaxis is a potentially life-threatening allergic reaction. The overall prevalence of anaphylaxis appears to be rising in children, but temporal trends among infants and toddlers are not well studied. To characterize the trends in US emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalizations among infants and toddlers with anaphylaxis from 2006 to2015. We conducted a study of temporal trends in anaphylaxis among children (age <18 years) and, more specifically, infants and toddlers (age <3 years) presenting to the ED between 2006 and 2015 using a large, nationally representative database. For internal consistency, we defined anaphylaxis using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification diagnosis codes and excluded visits with International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification diagnosis codes (late 2015). We calculated trends in the number and proportion of ED visits and hospitalizations and used multivariable logistic regression to idtients decreased. Food-allergic patients are routinely prescribed 2 epinephrine autoinjectors (EAIs). The cost-effectiveness of this strategy is unknown. To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of routinely prescribing all patients 2 EAI devices versus a risk-stratified approach (2 EAIs prescribed only for patients with a risk factor). Markov models compared universal versus risk-stratified approaches on the basis of either a previous medical history of anaphylaxis (PMH-ana) or anaphylaxis requiring multiple epinephrine doses (multi-epi). Cohorts of children with peanut allergy were evaluated over an 80-year time horizon from both US and UK societal and health care perspectives. Models assumed prescribing a second EAI provided a baseline 10-fold risk reduction versus anaphylaxis-related fatality and hospitalization. Cost-effectiveness threshold was $100,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). From a US perspective, universal prescription of 2 EAIs to all patients with peanut allergy was not cost-effective in the base case vees, limiting the second EAIs to patients with PMH-ana is more cost-effective than routinely prescribing 2 EAIs to all patients (particularly in resource-constrained settings). Assessment of clinical outcomes in the real-world corroborates findings from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This meta-analysis evaluated real-world data of omalizumab on treatment response, lung function, exacerbations, oral corticosteroid (OCS) use, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), health care resource utilization (HCRU), and school/work absenteeism at 4, 6, and 12 months after treatment. Observational studies in patients with severe allergic asthma (≥6 years) treated with omalizumab for ≥16 weeks, published from January 2005 to October 2018, were retrieved from PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane. A random-effects model was used to assess heterogeneity. In total, 86 publications were included. Global evaluation of treatment effectiveness (GETE) was good/excellent in 77% patients at 16 weeks (risk difference 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.70-0.84; I = 96%) and in 82% patients at 12 months (0.82, 0.73-0.91; 97%). The mean improvement in forced expiratory volume in 1 second was 160, 220, and 250 mL at 16 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months, respectively. There was a decrease in Asthma Control Questionnaire score at 16 weeks (-1.14), 6 months (-1.56), and 12 months (-1.13) after omalizumab therapy. Omalizumab significantly reduced annualized rate of severe exacerbations (risk ratio [RR] 0.41, 95% CI 0.30-0.56; I = 96%), proportion of patients receiving OCS (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.47-0.75; I = 96%), and number of unscheduled physician visits (mean difference-2.34, 95% CI-3.54 to-1.13; I = 98%) at 12 months versus baseline. The consistent improvements in GETE, lung function, and PROs, and reductions in asthma exacerbations, OCS use, and HCRU with add-on omalizumab in real-life confirm and complement the efficacy data of RCTs.The consistent improvements in GETE, lung function, and PROs, and reductions in asthma exacerbations, OCS use, and HCRU with add-on omalizumab in real-life confirm and complement the efficacy data of RCTs.The year 2020 was a landmark year of a once-in-a-century pandemic of a novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2 virus, that led to a rapidly spreading coronavirus disease (COVID-19). The spectrum of disease with SARS-CoV-2 ranges from asymptomatic to mild upper respiratory illness, to moderate to severe disease with respiratory compromise to acute respiratory distress syndrome, multiorgan failure, and death. Early in the pandemic, risk factors were recognized that contributed to more severe disease, but it became evident that individuals and even young people could have severe COVID-19. As we started to understand the immunobiology of COVID-19, it became clearer that the immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 were variable, and in some cases, the excessive inflammatory response contributed to greater morbidity and mortality. In this review, we will explore some of the additional risk factors that appear to contribute to disease severity and enhance our understanding of why some individuals experience more severe COVID-19. Recent advances in genome-wide associations have identified potential candidate genes in certain populations that may modify the host immune responses leading to dysregulated host immunity.