4.7 Article

Report from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases workshop on drug allergy

Journal

JOURNAL OF ALLERGY AND CLINICAL IMMUNOLOGY
Volume 136, Issue 2, Pages 262-+

Publisher

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2015.05.027

Keywords

Drug allergy; drug hypersensitivity; desensitization; pharmacogenomics; Stevens-Johnson syndrome; toxic epidermal necrolysis; hapten hypothesis; altered peptide repertoire hypothesis; pharmacologic interaction with immune receptor hypothesis

Funding

  1. Merck
  2. Sanofi
  3. National Institutes of Health (NIH) Desensitization
  4. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)
  5. GlaxoSmithKline
  6. Regeneron
  7. Celgene
  8. BMS
  9. Janssen
  10. NHMRC Australia
  11. NIH
  12. UpToDate
  13. Roche
  14. Lilly
  15. Boehringer Ingelheim
  16. AiCuris
  17. Menarini
  18. NIAID
  19. AB Science
  20. Novartis
  21. OM-Pharma
  22. Science Technologie
  23. Astellas pharma
  24. Sanofi Aventis
  25. Dyax
  26. ViroPharma
  27. HELIX
  28. CSL Behring

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Allergic reactions to drugs are a serious public health concern. In 2013, the Division of Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases sponsored a workshop on drug allergy. International experts in the field of drug allergy with backgrounds in allergy, immunology, infectious diseases, dermatology, clinical pharmacology, and pharmacogenomics discussed the current state of drug allergy research. These experts were joined by representatives from several National Institutes of Health institutes and the US Food and Drug Administration. The participants identified important advances that make new research directions feasible and made suggestions for research priorities and for development of infrastructure to advance our knowledge of the mechanisms, diagnosis, management, and prevention of drug allergy. The workshop summary and recommendations are presented herein.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available