Different Patterns of Response in Hypersensitivity Reactions to Arylpropionic Acid Derivatives

BACKGROUND

Ibuprofen and other arylpropionic acid derivatives (APs) are among the most consumed nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs worldwide at all age ranges; however, little is known about drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) they induce.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize in detail patients reporting DHRs to APs.

METHODS

We prospectively evaluated patients with symptoms suggestive of AP-DHRs and analyzed their clinical characteristics, reported reactions, and diagnostic approaches.

RESULTS

Six hundred sixty-two patients confirmed as hypersensitive to APs were included: 489 with cross-reactive reactions (CRs) (73.86%) and 173 with selective reactions (SRs) (26.13%). The percentage of subjects reporting reactions to ibuprofen and dexketoprofen was higher in CRs (P = .005 and P = .01, respectively), whereas naproxen and ketoprofen were more frequently involved in SRs (P = .0002 and P = .00001, respectively). The most frequent symptoms induced by ibuprofen, dexketoprofen, and naproxen were isolated angioedema and urticaria, combined or not with angioedema in both CRs and SRs. The result of nasal provocation test with lysine acetylsalicylate was positive in 156 cases (77.14% in patients showing exclusively respiratory symptoms, and in 68.18% of those with both cutaneous and respiratory involvement). To confirm diagnosis, drug provocation test with acetylsalicylic acid was required in 246 CR patients (50.3%), whereas in 28 SR patients (16.18%) drug provocation test with the culprit AP was required.

CONCLUSIONS

Skin is the organ most commonly involved in AP-DHRs, with ibuprofen and dexketoprofen inducing most frequently CRs, and naproxen and ketoprofen SRs. More studies are necessary to clarify the underlying mechanism in DHRs induced by APs.

Drug Reaction with Eosinophilia and Systemic Symptom Syndrome Due to Everolimus: A Case Report

Drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptom (DRESS) is a life-threatening drug hypersensitivity reaction that is characterized by skin rash, hematological abnormalities (eosinophilia, atypical lymphocytosis), lymphadenopathy, and internal organ involvement (liver, kidneys, and lung). Many drugs may cause DRESS syndrome, the most frequently reported of which are antiepileptics and allopurinol. In this case report, a patient who developed DRESS syndrome due to everolimus was presented herein.

A new pathway for penicillin delabeling in Norway

Background

Penicillin allergy is self-reported by 3-10% of patients admitted to hospital. The label is wrong in 90% of the cases and has severe health implications. Penicillin-delabeling can reverse the negative effects of the label, and pathways adapted to local practice are needed. No tools are available in Norway for penicillin delabeling outside an allergy clinic.

Objective

To create and validate the first penicillin delabeling pathway applicable outside an allergy clinic in Norway.

Methods

An interdisciplinary taskforce created a penicillin allergy delabeling program (PAD) adapted to the Norwegian health care system. This was validated in a prospective, single-center study. Very low-risk and low-risk patients underwent a direct oral penicillin challenge and high-risk patients were referred for allergologic evaluation.

Results

One-hundred forty-nine patients declaring penicillin allergy were included. Seventy-four (50%) were very-low- and low risk patients suitable for a direct oral penicillin challenge resulting in only 1 mild reaction. Sixty high-risk patients were eligible for an oral penicillin challenge after allergologic evaluation; 3 patients reacted non-severely.

Conclusion

We have created and demonstrated feasibility of the first penicillin delabeling program (PAD) applicable in a hospital setting outside an allergy clinic in Norway. Our data suggest this is safe and beneficial, with 49% patients delabeled through a direct oral penicillin challenge, performed without any serious adverse events, and an overall 87% delabeling rate.

Qualitative analysis of healthcare provider perspectives to evaluating beta-lactam allergies

BACKGROUND

There is a lack of understanding of the barriers reported by healthcare providers when evaluating beta-lactam allergies, but knowledge of these barriers is required for practical and effective implementation interventions.

METHODS

Twenty-five healthcare providers, consisting of physicians, nurses and pharmacists practicing in the areas of intensive care, emergency medicine, infectious disease and general hospital practice, were interviewed between September 2021 and July 2023. Twenty-three of these providers were practising in the USA. A semi-structured interview guide grounded in the Theoretical Domain Framework was used for the interviews. Deductive and inductive analysis was performed on the interview transcripts, and translated into intervention recommendations using the Behaviour Change Wheel.

RESULTS

Widely held beliefs included a lack of clear policy for the evaluation of allergies, confusing or missing documentation of allergy information, confidence in their own and their colleagues' ability to evaluate allergies when information is available, and pharmacists as the provider most equipped to evaluate beta-lactam allergies.

CONCLUSIONS

Health systems should adopt and disseminate policies for the evaluation of beta-lactam allergies, and promote the use of pharmacists in the evaluation of drug allergies when possible. Allergy sections of electronic health records should be reworked to encourage unambiguous documentation of allergy reactions and support using previously tolerated beta-lactam antibiotics.

Analysis of drug-induced anaphylaxis cases using the Japanese Adverse Drug Event Report (JADER) database - secondary publication

BACKGROUND

The epidemiology of drug-induced anaphylaxis using the Japanese nationwide database has been not reported, even though drugs are a common trigger of anaphylaxis. The aim of this study was to describe the epidemiological profile of cases of drug-induced anaphylaxis, including fatal cases, using the data from the Japanese Adverse Drug Event Report database (JADER).

METHODS

We extracted data regarding drug-related adverse events, between April 2004 and February 2018, published in JADER by the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency. We analyzed cases of anaphylaxis occurring between January 2005 and December 2017. The drug classification was based on the Japanese Standard Commodity Classification.

RESULTS

There were 16,916 cases of anaphylaxis reported during the study period. Among them, 418 fatalities were registered. The incidence of drug-induced anaphylaxis and fatal cases was 1.03 cases/year per 100,000 population and 0.03 cases/year, respectively. The most frequent causes of anaphylaxis were diagnostic agents, including X-ray contrast media (20.3%), and biological preparations, such as human blood preparations (20.1%). In fatal cases, diagnostic agents (28.7%) and antibiotic preparations (23.9%) were the most commonly associated types of drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

The frequency of drug-induced anaphylaxis and fatalities in Japan remained unchanged over the 13-year period analyzed in this study. Diagnostic agents and biological preparations were the most frequent causes of anaphylaxis; however, fatalities were most frequently caused by either diagnostic agents or antibiotic preparations.

Impact of histamine-2 antagonist shortage on the incidence of hypersensitivity reactions to paclitaxel: a reconsideration of premedication protocols in France (PACLIREACT Study)

PURPOSE

An international shortage of ranitidine led to adjustments in premedication regimens for paclitaxel-based chemotherapy in early October 2019. In this study, we implemented and evaluated an anti-allergic protocol without histamine-2 antagonists (H2As) and aimed to assess the risk of hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) to the different premedication regimens used.

METHODS

We conducted a single-center observational retrospective study of paclitaxel administrations (7173 administrations in 831 patients). Between January 2019 and December 2020, all allergies reported were recorded. A mixed logistic regression model was implemented to predict the risk of allergy at each injection and to account for repeated administration per patient.

RESULTS

A total of 27 HSRs occurred in 24 patients. No protective effect was observed for H2A when comparing paclitaxel injections with H2A premedication versus without H2A (OR = 1.12, p = 0.84). There was also no significant difference in risk of HSR for famotidine versus ranitidine (OR = 0.79, p = 0.78). However, the risk of HSRs was significantly lower for paclitaxel injections with corticosteroids than for those without (OR = 0.08, p = 0.03). In addition, the risk of HSR was significantly higher for the first, second, or third paclitaxel injections than for the subsequent injections (OR = 10.1, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

We did not find substantial evidence of an increased risk of HSR due to the absence of H2A in the premedication protocols for paclitaxel. Thus, in contrary to the existing literature on paclitaxel, our findings support the use of a premedication protocol without H2A.

Drug Hypersensitivity Reactions

Drug hypersensitivity reactions are a diverse group of reactions mediated by the immune system after exposure to a drug. The Gell and Coombs classification divides immunologic DHRs into 4 major pathophysiologic categories based on immunologic mechanism. Anaphylaxis is a Type I hypersensitivity reaction that requires immediate recognition and treatment. Severe cutaneous adverse reactions (SCARs) are a group of dermatologic diseases that result from a Type IV hypersensitivity process and include drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptom (DRESS) syndrome, Stevens-Johnson Syndrome (SJS), toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN), and acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP). Other types of reactions are slow to develop and do not always require rapid treatment. Emergency physicians should have a good understanding of these various types of drug hypersensitivity reactions and how to approach the patient regarding evaluation and treatment.

Drug-induced Stevens Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis: Interpreting the systematic reviews on immunomodulatory therapies

Drug-induced Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS) and toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) are non-immunoglobulin E-mediated severe cutaneous adverse reactions with a high risk of morbidity, mortality, and physical and mental health impact. These are associated with certain high-risk drugs, human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-specific genotypes and ethnicities. HLA class I-restricted oligoclonal CD8 cytotoxic T-cell responses occur at the tissue level in SJS/TEN. Cytotoxic T cells are the T effector cells that result in keratinocyte apoptosis (cell death) mediated by T effector molecules granzyme B, perforin, granulysin, gamma interferon, tumor necrosis factor-alpha, and lipocalin-2. The clinical hallmarks of SJS/TEN include fever, ≥2 mucosal involvements (ocular, oral, and genital), and positive Nikolsky sign with epidermal detachment. Systematic reviews on immunomodulatory treatments remain limited by the paucity of randomized controlled trials, heterogeneity of studies, and non-standardization of outcome measures. Preventive HLA genotype screening before the prescription of carbamazepine and allopurinol may further reduce the incidence of SJS/TEN. The role of immunomodulatory treatments in SJS/TEN is at present not supported by robust evidence from systematic reviews given the lack of randomized controlled trials. The evidence for improved survival with off-label use of corticosteroids plus intravenous immunoglobulins, ciclosporin plus intravenous immunoglobulins, and ciclosporin alone has not been demonstrated by network meta-analyses and meta-regression. In the real-world clinical setting, systemic corticosteroids (in SJS and overlap SJS/TEN), ciclosporin, and etanercept (in TEN) appear to be the off-label treatments currently most widely used.

Drug Reaction With Eosinophilia and Systemic Symptoms: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) is a potentially life-threatening drug reaction; recognizing the diversity of its clinical presentations, implicated drugs, and management modalities can aid in diagnosis and reduce morbidity and mortality.

OBJECTIVE

To review the clinical features, drug causes, and treatments deployed in DRESS.

METHODS

This review was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to review publications relating to DRESS published between 1979 and 2021. Only publications with a RegiSCAR score of 4 or greater were included (indicating "probable" or "definite" DRESS). The PRISMA guidelines were used for data extraction and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for quality assessment (Pierson DJ. Respir Care 2009;54:1372-8). The main outcomes included implicated drugs, patient demographics, clinical manifestations, treatment, and sequelae for each included publication.

RESULTS

A total of 1124 publications were reviewed, and 131 met the inclusion criteria, amounting to 151 cases of DRESS. The most implicated drug classes were antibiotics, anticonvulsants, and anti-inflammatories, although up to 55 drugs were implicated. Cutaneous manifestations were present in 99% of cases, with a median onset of 24 days and maculopapular rash the most common morphology. Common systemic features were fever, eosinophilia, lymphadenopathy, and liver involvement. Facial edema was present in 67 cases (44%). Systemic corticosteroids were the mainstay of DRESS-specific treatment. A total of 13 cases (9%) resulted in mortality.

CONCLUSION

DRESS diagnosis should be considered in the presence of a cutaneous eruption, fever, eosinophilia, liver involvement, and lymphadenopathy. The class of implicated drug may influence outcome, as allopurinol was associated with 23% of cases that resulted in death (3 cases). Given potential DRESS complications and mortality, it is important that DRESS is recognized early so that any suspect drugs are ceased promptly.

DNA methylation of ITGB2 contributes to allopurinol hypersensitivity

BACKGROUNDS

HLA-B*58:01 allele was strongly associated with allopurinol induced severe cutaneous adverse drug reaction (SCAR). However, HLA-B genotype is not sufficient to predict the occurrence of allopurinol-induced SCAR.

OBJECTIVE

To discover DNA methylation markers for allopurinol-induced SCAR which may improve the prediction accuracy of genetic testing.

STUDY DESIGN

The study was designed as a retrospective case-control clinical study in multicenter hospitals across Taiwan, Mainland China, Malaysia and Canada. 125 cases of allopurinol-induced SCAR patients and 139 cases of allopurinol tolerant controls were enrolled in this study during 2005 to 2021.

RESULTS

The results of genome-wide DNA methylation assay of 62 patients revealed that ITGB2 showed strong discriminative ability of allopurinol-induced SCAR in both HLA-B*58:01 positive and negative patients with AUC value of 0.9364 (95% CI 0.8682-1.000). In validation study, significant hypermethylation of ITGB2 were further validated in allopurinol-induced SCAR patients compared to tolerant controls, especially in those without HLA-B*58:01(AUC value of 0.8814 (95% CI 0.7121-1.000)). Additionally, the methylation levels of 2 sites on ITGB2 were associated with SCAR phenotypes. Combination of HLA-B*58:01 genotyping and ITGB2 methylation status could improve the prediction accuracy of allopurinol-induced SCAR with the AUC value up to 0.9387 (95% CI 0.9089-0.9684), while the AUC value of HLA-B*58:01 genotyping alone was 0.8557 (95% CI 0.8030-0.9083).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study uncovers differentially methylated genes between allopurinol-induced SCAR patients and tolerant controls with positive or negative HLA-B*58:01 allele and provides the novel epigenetic marker that improves the prediction accuracy of genetic testing for prevention of allopurinol-induced SCAR.

Risk Factors of Challenge-Proven Beta-Lactam Allergy in Children with Immediate and Non-Immediate Mild Cutaneous Reactions

INTRODUCTION

Beta-lactam (BL) antibiotics are the most often involved drugs in allergic reactions. Mild cutaneous reactions such as maculopapular exanthema or urticaria are the most common presenting complaints of BL allergy in the pediatric population. However, it can be challenging to distinguish BL-induced allergy from reactions due to infections or other reasons. In this study, we aimed to determine the clinical characteristics and potential risk factors of true BL allergy in children with suspected mild cutaneous reactions to BLs.

METHODS

We evaluated children who were admitted to our pediatric allergy clinic with suspected BL allergy in between January 2015 and March 2020. Patients with a history suggestive of immediate and non-immediate mild cutaneous reactions were included in the study. The oral challenge test (OCT) with the culprit drug was performed on all patients to confirm the diagnosis.

RESULTS

Two hundred fourteen (119 male and 95 female) patients with a median age of 4.9 years were evaluated. BL allergy was confirmed in 10.7% (23) of the patients, according to the OCT results. Most of the proven allergic reactions were of the immediate type (73.9%), and urticaria was the most common presenting complaint (60.8%) in proven BL-allergic patients. The negative predictive value of penicillin-G skin testing was 89.7% for immediate-type penicillin allergy and 93.4% for non-immediate reactions. Also, positive predictive value of penicillin-G skin testing was 50% for immediate and 25% for non-immediate reactions. In the multivariate logistic regression analysis, a history of proven drug allergy (Exp (B): 7.76, 95% CI: 1.88-31.97, p = 0.005) was found to be the risk for BL allergy.

CONCLUSION

This study highlighted that OCTs should be performed to confirm the diagnosis in patients suspected of immediate and non-immediate mild cutaneous reactions to BLs and remove the overestimated "BL allergy" label. In these patients, a history of proven drug allergy might be a risk factor for true BL allergy.

Clavulanic Acid Is a Leading Culprit Beta-Lactam in Immediate Allergic Reactions to Penicillins

PURPOSE

Clavulanate, a beta-lactam associated with amoxicillin, is frequently prescribed in patients at all ages. Recent data implicate amoxicillin-clavulanate in up to 80% of beta-lactam allergy cases. We assessed clavulanate's role in inducing allergic reactions to this combination treatment, with a focus on selective immediate reactions.

METHODS

Adults (≥ 16 years) reporting a history of immediate reactions to amoxicillin-clavulanate were evaluated through a beta-lactam allergological workup, using modified European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology guidelines. Patients first underwent skin testing, and if negative, drug provocation tests. Expected outcomes were: Group A, subjects with immediate reaction to classical penicillin group determinants (penicilloyl polylysine, minor determinants mixture, and/or penicillin G); Group B, subjects with selective immediate reaction to amoxicillin; Group C, subjects with selective immediate reaction to clavulanate and Group D, those immediate reactions with co-sensitization to clavulanate plus penicillin group determinants or amoxicillin.

RESULTS

Of 1,170 included patients, 104 had immediate reactions: 36.5% to penicillin group determinants (Group A), 26.9% to amoxicillin (Group B), 32.7% to clavulanate (Group C), and 3.8% to clavulanate plus penicillin determinants or amoxicillin (Group D). Diagnosis was made by skin testing in 79%, 75% and 47% of the patients, respectively, in the first 3 groups (P < 0.001). Drug provocation tests were necessary to establish most other diagnoses. Anaphylaxis predominated over urticaria/angioedema in all groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Selective immediate reactions to clavulanate accounted for over a third of cases with confirmed reactions after amoxicillin-clavulanate intake, with more than half experiencing anaphylaxis. Within this group, skin test sensitivity was below 50%. People taking amoxicillin-clavulanate may also be co-sensitized to both drugs.

DRESS syndrome: A literature review and treatment algorithm

Drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms, known by its acronym in English as DRESS (Drug Reaction with Eosinophilia and Systemic Symptoms), clinically manifests with fever, facial edema, lymphadenopathy, a morbilliform rash, and organ involvement. Laboratory results reveal leukocytosis, atypical lymphocytes, eosinophilia, and alterations of liver and kidney function tests. The actual incidence of DRESS is unknown, because it may vary depending on the type of medication and the immune status of each patient; also, because many cases remain undiagnosed or untreated. The drugs most associated with DRESS include antiepileptics, antibiotics, antituberculosis, and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents (NSAIDs). Its diagnosis is sometimes made late and can become a challenge. The diagnostic criteria proposed by the international Registry of Severe Cutaneous Adverse Reactions (RegiSCAR) help to establish the diagnosis through a score system based on clinical and laboratory findings. The first step to identify the culprit is a thorough clinical history that includes all suspects, emphasizing those most known to cause DRESS syndrome according to the context and the literature. A skin biopsy may also be helpful in the diagnostic process. Patch testing is the test of choice to search for the culprit in cases of DRESS. Regarding prognosis, the estimated mortality due to DRESS is 3.8%. The main causes of mortality include fulminant hepatitis and liver necrosis. Several indicators of poor prognosis have been identified and these include an eosinophil count above 6000 × 103/μL, thrombocytopenia, pancytopenia, leukocytosis and coagulopathy. This article aims to review the evidence available regarding the epidemiology, pathophysiology, clinical and laboratory findings, diagnosis, and treatment of DRESS.

Lenalidomide Desensitization for Delayed Cutaneous Reaction: A Case Series and Review of the Literature

BACKGROUND

Lenalidomide is commonly used for treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) as well as other hematological disorders. Cutaneous adverse reactions occur frequently and withholding lenalidomide treatment may have implications for prognosis.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the role of lenalidomide desensitization in patients with cutaneous adverse reactions.

METHODS

A retrospective review of patients referred for lenalidomide desensitization between May 2019 and May 2022 at a tertiary hospital. All patients underwent a 6-week outpatient desensitization with premedication.

RESULTS

There were 12 patients: 10 males and 2 females with a median age of 65 years. All had MM with autologous stem cell transplantation and lenalidomide 10 mg daily added for maintenance therapy. Most patients (n = 8) had a generalized maculopapular exanthem with or without pruritus. All patients had delayed cutaneous reactions; the median time to onset was 14 days (range 2-28 d). Six patients tolerated desensitization: 5 on the first attempt and 1 after 3 attempts and supplementary oral prednisolone. Four patients underwent multiple (≤3) attempts at desensitization owing to breakthrough symptoms. In patients who failed desensitization, recurrence of symptoms occurred variably, either early (within days), within weeks, or delayed by more than 1 month.

CONCLUSIONS

Lenalidomide desensitization is worthwhile and allows continuation of treatment. In our MM cohort, lenalidomide desensitization was successful in only 50% of cases, including some cases in whom ongoing symptoms were mitigated by cotreatment with antihistamine.

The Safety of the Direct Drug Provocation Test in Beta-Lactam Hypersensitivity in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Direct drug provocation test (DPT) without prior skin testing (ST) has been investigated in children suspected of being at risk for beta-lactam (BL) hypersensitivity reaction (HSR). However, no systematic review and meta-analysis has investigated the efficacy and safety of direct DPT for BL-HSR in children.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the prevalence of BL-HSR by direct DPT and the safety of direct DPT in children.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and CINAHL from their inception to July 23, 2022, for studies that performed direct DPT in children with suspected BL-HSR, or for studies that performed DPT in all cases with ST results, but they ignored the ST results. The true prevalence was defined as the proportion of children who experienced an HSR during direct DPT. Safety was determined according to the proportion of children who developed a dangerous reaction following DPT.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight studies with 8,334 direct challenges were included. Fifteen studies included patients who presented with either immediate or nonimmediate HSR, and the majority of the index reactions were nonsevere. Amoxicillin/amoxicillin-clavulanic acid was the most commonly used during the DPT. The pooled prevalence of confirmed BL-HSR was 5.23% (95% CI 4.17-6.39; I² = 72%). Immediate and nonimmediate HSR were reported in 0.8% (95% CI 0.43-1.25; I² = 55.1%) and 3.69% (95% CI 2.66-4.87; I² = 79.77%), respectively. Severe reactions were found in 3 cases with the frequency of 0.036% (95% CI 0.012-0.112; I² = 0%).

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of BL-HSR by direct DPT was 5.23%, and the frequency of severe reactions from direct DPT was very low (0.036%). Our findings support direct DPT as a safe and effective delabeling tool in children with suspected nonsevere BL-HSR.

Dynamic reaction picklist for improving allergy reaction documentation: A usability study

OBJECTIVE

To assess novel dynamic reaction picklists for improving allergy reaction documentation compared to a static reaction picklist.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We developed three web-based user interfaces (UIs) mimicking the Mass General Brigham's EHR allergy module: the first and second UIs (i.e., UI-1D, UI-2D) implemented two dynamic reaction picklists with different ranking algorithms and the third UI (UI-3S) implemented a static reaction picklist like the one used in the current EHR. We recruited 18 clinicians to perform allergy entry for 10 test cases each via UI-1D and UI-3S, and another 18 clinicians via UI-2D and UI-3S. Primary measures were the number of free-text entries and time to complete the allergy entry. Clinicians were also interviewed using 30 questions before and after the data entry.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Among 36 clinicians, less than half were satisfied with the current EHR reaction picklists, due to their incomprehensiveness, inefficiency, and lack of intuitiveness. The clinicians used significantly fewer free-text entries when using UI-1D or UI-2D compared to UI-3S (p < 0.05). The clinicians used on average 51 s (15 %) less time via UI-1D and 50 s (16 %) less time via UI-2D in completing the allergy entries versus UI-3S, and there was not a statistically significant difference in documentation time for either group between the dynamic and static UIs. Overall, 15-17 (83-94 %) clinicians rated UI-1D and 13-15 (72-83 %) clinicians rated UI-2D as efficient, easy to use, and useful, while less than half rated the same for UI-3S. Most clinicians reported that the dynamic reaction picklists always or often suggested appropriate reactions (n = 30, 83 %) and would decrease the free-text entries (n = 26, 72 %); nearly all preferred the dynamic picklist over the static picklist (n = 32, 89 %).

CONCLUSION

We found that dynamic reaction picklists significantly reduced the number of free-text entries and could reduce the time for allergy documentation by 15%. Clinicians preferred the dynamic reaction picklist over the static picklist.

COVID-19 vaccine allergy advice and guidance: The experience of a UK tertiary referral centre

Objective

The objective was to review COVID-19 vaccine allergy advice and guidance requests received and assess the impact of advice outcome on vaccination outcome.

Design

A retrospective analysis of requests for advice and guidance regarding COVID-19 vaccine allergy was completed using an electronic referral system from February 2021 to January 2022.

Participants

A total of 1265 independent patient requests for advice were received from primary care. Full vaccination information was available on 1210 patients who were included in the analysis.

Main outcome measures

We evaluated the specific outcome of request for advice (written advice versus allergy consultation), rate of vaccination, vaccination combinations, and tolerance of vaccination.

Results

Of the 1210 patients included, 959 (79%) were female. Eight hundred and ninety-six (74%) requests were managed with written advice only and of these 675 (75%) patients went on to be vaccinated. Overall, 891 (74%) of the population were vaccinated with 2 or more doses.Two hundred and nineteen patient consultations were undertaken with 109 (50%) prior to the first vaccination. Forty-nine (45%) consultations prior to vaccination were undertaken due to a label of anaphylaxis to vaccination in the past. Vaccination was recommended for all patients, and 78 (72%) of these received a first dose. Eight of these patients (10%) had symptoms within 1 h of vaccine administration.One hundred and ten (50%) consultations were undertaken for adverse reactions post COVID-19 vaccination, with 84 (76%) concerning immediate symptoms. Thirty patients (27%) who had a consultation had had adrenaline administered post vaccination. One patient had biopsy confirmed Stevens Johnson Syndrome and was referred to Dermatology. All others due for further doses (107 patients) were recommended to have subsequent doses with 49 (45%) offered the same vaccine. Eighty-nine patients had a vaccine administered post adverse reaction and 79 (88%) tolerated the dose.Skin testing and challenge to polyethylene glycol were negative in the 8 patients tested.

Conclusions

Over 1000 requests for advice and guidance were received during the review period, managed mainly with written advice. The overwhelming majority of requests for advice and consultations were for females, with equal distribution both pre- and post-COVID-19 vaccine administration. Vaccination was recommended in all but 1 patient (with biopsy confirmed Stevens Johnson Syndrome). Polyethylene glycol allergy was not confirmed in any patient, nor did any patient have confirmed anaphylaxis when the vaccine was administered under our supervision, suggesting that type 1 mediated hypersensitivity is uncommon even in this "high risk" population.

Current situation of anaphylaxis in Japan: Data from the anaphylaxis registry of training and teaching facilities certified by the Japanese Society of Allergy - secondary publication

BACKGROUND

Anaphylaxis is a potentially fatal severe systemic hypersensitivity reaction that causes symptoms in multiple organs such as the skin, respiratory tract, and gastrointestinal tract; however, no nationwide epidemiological survey on anaphylaxis has been conducted in Japan. This survey aimed to elucidate the triggers and treatment of anaphylaxis in Japan.

METHODS

Between February 2015 and October 2017, we prospectively collected clinical data on the triggers and treatment of patients who developed anaphylaxis or were admitted to the emergency room with anaphylaxis in the training and teaching facilities of the Japanese Society of Allergology.

RESULTS

This study included 79 of the 451 affiliated facilities (18%), and a total of 767 patients were enrolled; 73% of them were aged <18 years and 7% had in-hospital triggers. The most common triggers were food (68%), drugs (12%), food-dependent exercise-induced anaphylaxis (5%), insects (4%), and oral immunotherapy (3%), with drugs being the most common in-hospital trigger and food being the most common out-of-hospital trigger. Intramuscular injection of adrenaline was administered therapeutically to 38% of the patients, with 10% requiring multiple doses. Adrenaline auto-injectors were used in 12% of out-of-hospital patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The present survey revealed the most common triggers and treatments for anaphylaxis in Japan. Self-management and adrenaline administration as first-line treatment may not be done sufficiently. Therefore, it is necessary to thoroughly educate and train patients and physicians about anaphylaxis.

Delayed-Type Heparin Allergy: Intravenous Tolerance Despite Inflammatory Skin Reaction After Subcutaneous Injection

BACKGROUND

Heparin allergy most frequently manifests as delayed-type hypersensitivity (DTH) causing an itchy inflammatory skin reaction at the site of subcutaneous injection. An important differential diagnosis is circumscribed skin necrosis due to heparin-induced thrombocytopenia.

OBJECTIVES

An inflammatory skin reaction to subcutaneously injected heparin generally entails the quest for alternative anticoagulation; concerns may particularly arise in an emergency situation requiring intravenous heparin administration.

METHODS

All heparin DTH cases seen in our department over the last 17 years underwent standardized allergy diagnostics including challenge testing, that is, subcutaneous injection of fondaparinux and intravenous administration of unfractionated heparin (UFH).

RESULTS

Of a total of 50 patients with confirmed heparin allergy, DTH was found in 48 (96.0%), and immediate-type, presumably IgE-mediated hypersensitivity was diagnosed in only 2 (4.0%). In the 48 DTH cases, intradermal testing revealed broad cross-reactivity between UFH and low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWH) including nadroparin, dalteparin, and enoxaparin. Cross-reactivity with (or concomitant sensitization to) fondaparinux was seen in only 3 (6.3%) cases. Intravenous administration of UFH was tolerated by all 45 patients challenged, despite DTH to UFH and LMWH as demonstrated by intradermal testing.

CONCLUSIONS

If an inflammatory skin reaction at the site of subcutaneously injected heparin is observed or reported without any evidence of skin necrosis or thrombocytopenia, intravenous administration of UFH seems to be sufficiently safe and may be considered without allergy testing if urgently indicated in an emergency situation. Fondaparinux is the most suitable alternative for subcutaneous application.

Tuberculosis treatment-related lichenoid drug eruptions

Tuberculosis is one of the leading causes of death from infectious diseases in adults worldwide. Drug hypersensitivity in tuberculosis is an important problem affecting the treatment process. Although treatment is started with isoniazid, rifampicin, ethambutol, and pyrazinamide in drug-sensitive tuberculosis patients, it may not always be continued in this way. When hypersensitivity develops under antituberculosis treatment, type 4 hypersensitivity is the most common, and maculopapular drug eruption develops as a subgroup. Lichenoid drug eruption is very rare. We present our case who was diagnosed with pulmonary tuberculosis, who developed lichenoid drug eruption while receiving treatment, and whose treatment was completed by giving the new regimen with successful desensitization.