Skip to content
  • About
  • Contact
  • Contribute
  • Book
  • Careers
  • Podcast
  • Recommended
  • Speaking
  • All
  • Physician
  • Practice
  • Policy
  • Finance
  • Conditions
  • .edu
  • Patient
  • Meds
  • Tech
  • Social
  • Video
    • All
    • Physician
    • Practice
    • Policy
    • Finance
    • Conditions
    • .edu
    • Patient
    • Meds
    • Tech
    • Social
    • Video
    • About
    • Contact
    • Contribute
    • Book
    • Careers
    • Podcast
    • Recommended
    • Speaking

Biologics are not small molecules: the case for pre-allergy testing in an era of immune-based therapies

Robert Trent
Meds
May 1, 2025
Share
Tweet
Share

“Once it’s in your body, there’s no taking it back.”

That’s what the infusion nurse told a friend of mine after administering the injection.

She had just started a biologic medication for an autoimmune condition. Immediately, her body reacted: nausea, then hives, then a terrifying tightening of her throat. She rushed back to the clinic. The IV steroids and Benadryl may have stopped the immediate effects, but not the long-term physiological, psychological, and financial fallout.

The cost of the medication: $42,000.

The cost of the reaction: immeasurable oxidative stress, and lost trust in the medical system.

When the framework does not match the drug

There is a fundamental mismatch between how we treat biologic therapies and what they actually are.

These are not small molecule drugs. They are engineered proteins. They behave like guided missiles, targeting immune functions with a precision that is both powerful and unpredictable. Once introduced, they do not passively exit the body. They persist. They embed. They teach the immune system what to attack or not.

At one appointment, I asked the prescribing physician if they could tell me the FC region classification of the drug. Their answer was honest: “I’m not sure.”

Despite this level of uncertainty, we apply to biologics the same framework we use for antihypertensives and antibiotics. We assume that if something goes wrong, we can just stop it. But that is not how these drugs work. There is no clean off-switch. There is only the slow unraveling of a system we did not properly screen.

Modern medicine must become more adaptable.

The deeper issue is a failure of adaptability. Medicine, for all its progress, is not keeping pace with the rate of change in the world it is meant to serve.

We are now in an era where technology evolves faster than clinical culture. Artificial intelligence is reshaping diagnostics and surgery. New diseases are emerging at an accelerating pace, driven by global population growth, urbanization, and increased density.

ADVERTISEMENT

In such a complex and fast-changing environment, rigid protocols designed for yesterday’s medicine will not suffice. Medicine must begin to behave more like the biological systems it treats: Adaptive, open to feedback, and able to recalibrate in real time.

Biologics represent this complexity. But our regulatory and clinical response to them has been reactionary, built on outdated assumptions. This is how fragile systems collapse not from novel threats, but from institutional refusal to adapt.

The illusion of “safe enough”

This is not an anti-biologic position. These therapies have transformed and saved lives. But the way they are introduced to patients, often without even a mention of allergy screening, is negligent.

And it is not because the science is lacking. We already screen for far less costly agents. We patch test for penicillin. We perform challenge tests for peanuts. We require cross-reactivity panels for contrast dyes.

But for monoclonal antibodies and other biologics? Access to even a single aliquot for testing is nearly impossible. Drug reps do not provide samples. Clinics are discouraged from requesting them. And existing research is unclear on how testing could be practically implemented for certain agents. Providers are left with two options: prescribe or delay, often without any safe mechanism for trial dosing.

Why?

Because it is expensive, financially, bureaucratically, and legally. The path of least resistance is to administer the full dose and see what happens.

To patients, that feels less like science and more like roulette.

Complex systems, initial conditions, and trust

In complexity science, outcomes are sensitive to initial conditions. What happens downstream is shaped by what happens at the outset.

In immune-based therapies, this is not a metaphor. It is the mechanism. If the body reacts poorly to a biologic, it may never tolerate it or related compounds again. The immune memory is not easily erased.

And yet we continue to treat these therapies as benign until proven otherwise. The absence of mandatory allergy screening reflects a deeper systemic issue: We are still trying to fit 21st-century therapies into 20th-century models.

Psychological cost: When trust collapses

We often account for the physical risks of biologic therapy. What we overlook is the psychological fallout.

When patients suffer severe immune reactions, trust in the system begins to fracture. Why wasn’t I tested? Why didn’t anyone warn me? What else are they not telling me?

This erosion of trust is not abstract. It affects outcomes. Patients become less likely to report symptoms, ask questions, or continue care. In a time when medical distrust is already at an all-time high, this disengagement has real clinical consequences.

This is where the concept of psychological safety becomes essential. In Google’s Project Aristotle, psychological safety: The belief that it is safe to speak up, was identified as the strongest predictor of team effectiveness, more important than intelligence, aptitude, or technical skill.

The same holds true in medicine. When patients feel safe, they participate. When they do not, they disappear.

The ask: Pre-allergy testing as standard protocol

I am calling on physicians and the institutions that support them to advocate for mandated pre-allergy testing for all biologic therapies. Not as an optional safeguard. As standard protocol.

I am calling on the FDA to revise its regulatory assumptions around biologics. These are not analogues of small molecules. They are fundamentally different agents and require a safety framework that reflects their persistence, complexity, and immunogenicity.

And I am asking pharmaceutical companies to do what is ethically necessary: Provide access to testable samples. If you are going to charge five figures for a therapy, you can afford to let us test 0.1 percent of a vial.

The immune system remembers what we give it.

Let us make sure we remember what we are doing.

Robert Trent is a graduate student.

Prev

Clinicians must be scrupulously honest in and out of work

May 1, 2025 Kevin 0
…
Next

Burnout isn’t ironclad—and neither are we

May 1, 2025 Kevin 0
…

Tagged as: Medications

Post navigation

< Previous Post
Clinicians must be scrupulously honest in and out of work
Next Post >
Burnout isn’t ironclad—and neither are we

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

More by Robert Trent

  • Does the FDA approval of aducanumab mark the return of science-based medicine?

    Robert Trent
  • Are we underestimating the danger of prions and prion based diseases?

    Robert Trent
  • Getting a second opinion can save lives. It is time we make Miranda rights for patients.

    Robert Trent

Related Posts

  • How I used social media to get promoted to professor

    David R. Stukus, MD
  • The emotional side of genetic testing

    Erin Paterson
  • A patient’s perspective on genetic testing

    Erin Paterson
  • Improving medical specialty selection with pre-training examinations

    Deepak Gupta, MD and Sarwan Kumar, MD
  • Operating room etiquette: tips for pre-med students

    Natalie Enyedi
  • When celebrities attack children with food allergies

    Lianne Mandelbaum, PT

More in Meds

  • A world without antidepressants: What could possibly go wrong?

    Tomi Mitchell, MD
  • The truth about GLP-1 medications for weight loss: What every patient should know

    Nisha Kuruvadi, DO
  • The hidden bias in how we treat chronic pain

    Richard A. Lawhern, PhD
  • The anesthesia spectrum: Guiding patients through comfort options in oral surgery

    Dexter Mattox, MD, DMD
  • Functional precision oncology: a game changer in cancer therapy

    Chris Apfel, MD, PhD, MBA
  • Why prescribing medicine to kids scares even experienced doctors

    Dr. Damane Zehra
  • Most Popular

  • Past Week

    • What’s driving medical students away from primary care?

      ​​Vineeth Amba, MPH, Archita Goyal, and Wayne Altman, MD | Education
    • A faster path to becoming a doctor is possible—here’s how

      Ankit Jain | Education
    • Make cognitive testing as routine as a blood pressure check

      Joshua Baker and James Jackson, PsyD | Conditions
    • The dreaded question: Do you have boys or girls?

      Pamela Adelstein, MD | Physician
    • A world without antidepressants: What could possibly go wrong?

      Tomi Mitchell, MD | Meds
    • Rethinking patient payments: Why billing is the new frontline of patient care [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast
  • Past 6 Months

    • What’s driving medical students away from primary care?

      ​​Vineeth Amba, MPH, Archita Goyal, and Wayne Altman, MD | Education
    • The silent crisis hurting pain patients and their doctors

      Kayvan Haddadan, MD | Physician
    • Internal Medicine 2025: inspiration at the annual meeting

      American College of Physicians | Physician
    • What happened to real care in health care?

      Christopher H. Foster, PhD, MPA | Policy
    • Are quotas a solution to physician shortages?

      Jacob Murphy | Education
    • The hidden bias in how we treat chronic pain

      Richard A. Lawhern, PhD | Meds
  • Recent Posts

    • Alzheimer’s and the family: Opening the conversation with children [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast
    • AI in mental health: a new frontier for therapy and support

      Tim Rubin, PsyD | Conditions
    • What prostate cancer taught this physician about being a patient

      Francisco M. Torres, MD | Conditions
    • Why fearing AI is really about fearing ourselves

      Bhargav Raman, MD, MBA | Tech
    • The broken health care system doesn’t have to break you

      Jessie Mahoney, MD | Physician
    • Why great patient outcomes don’t protect female doctors from burnout [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast

Subscribe to KevinMD and never miss a story!

Get free updates delivered free to your inbox.


Find jobs at
Careers by KevinMD.com

Search thousands of physician, PA, NP, and CRNA jobs now.

Learn more

Leave a Comment

Founded in 2004 by Kevin Pho, MD, KevinMD.com is the web’s leading platform where physicians, advanced practitioners, nurses, medical students, and patients share their insight and tell their stories.

Social

  • Like on Facebook
  • Follow on Twitter
  • Connect on Linkedin
  • Subscribe on Youtube
  • Instagram

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Most Popular

  • Past Week

    • What’s driving medical students away from primary care?

      ​​Vineeth Amba, MPH, Archita Goyal, and Wayne Altman, MD | Education
    • A faster path to becoming a doctor is possible—here’s how

      Ankit Jain | Education
    • Make cognitive testing as routine as a blood pressure check

      Joshua Baker and James Jackson, PsyD | Conditions
    • The dreaded question: Do you have boys or girls?

      Pamela Adelstein, MD | Physician
    • A world without antidepressants: What could possibly go wrong?

      Tomi Mitchell, MD | Meds
    • Rethinking patient payments: Why billing is the new frontline of patient care [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast
  • Past 6 Months

    • What’s driving medical students away from primary care?

      ​​Vineeth Amba, MPH, Archita Goyal, and Wayne Altman, MD | Education
    • The silent crisis hurting pain patients and their doctors

      Kayvan Haddadan, MD | Physician
    • Internal Medicine 2025: inspiration at the annual meeting

      American College of Physicians | Physician
    • What happened to real care in health care?

      Christopher H. Foster, PhD, MPA | Policy
    • Are quotas a solution to physician shortages?

      Jacob Murphy | Education
    • The hidden bias in how we treat chronic pain

      Richard A. Lawhern, PhD | Meds
  • Recent Posts

    • Alzheimer’s and the family: Opening the conversation with children [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast
    • AI in mental health: a new frontier for therapy and support

      Tim Rubin, PsyD | Conditions
    • What prostate cancer taught this physician about being a patient

      Francisco M. Torres, MD | Conditions
    • Why fearing AI is really about fearing ourselves

      Bhargav Raman, MD, MBA | Tech
    • The broken health care system doesn’t have to break you

      Jessie Mahoney, MD | Physician
    • Why great patient outcomes don’t protect female doctors from burnout [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast

MedPage Today Professional

An Everyday Health Property Medpage Today
  • Terms of Use | Disclaimer
  • Privacy Policy
  • DMCA Policy
All Content © KevinMD, LLC
Site by Outthink Group

Leave a Comment

Comments are moderated before they are published. Please read the comment policy.

Loading Comments...