Skin test concentrations for systemically administered drugs -- an ENDA/EAACI Drug Allergy Interest Group position paper

IgE allergy diagnostics and other relevant tests in allergy, a World Allergy Organization position paper

Currently, testing for immunoglobulin E (IgE) sensitization is the cornerstone of diagnostic evaluation in suspected allergic conditions. This review provides a thorough and updated critical appraisal of the most frequently used diagnostic tests, both in vivo and in vitro. It discusses skin tests, challenges, and serological and cellular in vitro tests, and provides an overview of indications, advantages and disadvantages of each in conditions such as respiratory, food, venom, drug, and occupational allergy. Skin prick testing remains the first line approach in most instances; the added value of serum specific IgE to whole allergen extracts or components, as well as the role of basophil activation tests, is evaluated. Unproven, non-validated, diagnostic tests are also discussed. Throughout the review, the reader must bear in mind the relevance of differentiating between sensitization and allergy; the latter entails not only allergic sensitization, but also clinically relevant symptoms triggered by the culprit allergen.

Hypersensitivity Reactions to Biologicals: from Bench to Bedside

Purpose of Review

Biologic agents are new treatment options for chronic inflammatory diseases and cancers. As a result of their unique mechanism of action, they are more effective and less toxic treatment option and their clinical usage is increasing. While they are more commonly used, various adverse effects have been observed including life-threatening ones, including anaphylaxis. The aim of this review is to distinguish the anaphylaxis from other hypersensitivity reactions (HSR) and provide a management algorithm for the anaphylactic reactions induced by biological agents.

Recent Findings

Many case reports and series have been published regarding anaphylaxis and other hypersensitivity reactions (concerning cytokine release syndrome, acute infusion–related reactions) due to biologic agents. Although acute treatment of HSR varies according to the clinical presentation, desensitization with the drug is the major management option for subsequent administrations in the case of anaphylactic reactions.

Summary

Anaphylaxis and other immediate onset hypersensitivity reactions are occasionally difficult to differentiate from each other, and mixed-type reactions may be observed. Immediate management of anaphylaxis includes discontinuation of infusion, immediate administration of adrenaline, antihistamines, corticosteroids, and other treatment options depending on the symptoms. After 30–120 min of the reaction, a blood sample for serum tryptase levels should be obtained and after 4–6 weeks skin testing with the culprit drug should be performed for decision of long-term management via either graded challenge or desensitization.

Update on the Management of Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drug Hypersensitivity

The clinical phenotypes of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) hypersensitivity are heterogeneous with various presentations including time of symptom onset, organ involvements, and underlying pathophysiology. Having a correct diagnosis can be challenging. Understanding their respective mechanisms as well as developing a comprehensive classification and diagnostic algorithm are pivotal for appropriate management strategy. Treatment modalities are based on the subtypes and severity of hypersensitivity reactions. Insights into the phenotypes and endotypes of hypersensitivity reactions enable personalized management in patients with suboptimal control of disease. This review updated the recent evidence of pathophysiology, classification, diagnostic algorithm, and management of NSAID hypersensitivity reactions.

A case of late-onset larynx angioedema after ranibizumab intravitreal injection: Ranibizumab-related angioedema

This case report describes an unusual case of late-onset larynx angioedema after ranibizumab intravitreal injection. A 72-year-old female patient presented to our clinic for decreased vision; right eye (RE) fundoscopy and optical coherence tomography (OCT) revealed mild chorioretinal atrophy and choroidal neovascularization with subretinal fluid. A ranibizumab injection was planned in the RE, with standard pretreatment with daily oral administration of betamethasone, cetirizine, and ranitidine because her medical history revealed two adverse drug reactions (ADRs) to contrast media (CM). Despite the premedication, 2 h after injection, the patient referred throat closing sensation and dyspnea that resolved within few hours by betamethasone 4 mg intramuscular injection, without further reoccurrence. In occasion of the second intravitreal injection, video rhinofibrolaryngoscopy revealed subglottic edema that resolved within few hours by betamethasone 4 mg intramuscular injection. This report suggests that, even in cases of intravitreal injection, patients with history of allergy, despite the anti-allergic treatment, should be hospitalized to detect late onset of such a life-threatening complication.

Non-β-Lactam Antibiotic Hypersensitivity Reactions

OBJECTIVES

Antibiotics are among the most common prescriptions in children, and non-β-lactam antibiotics (NBLAs) account for almost half of those prescribed in Australian pediatric hospitals. Despite this, data on NBLA hypersensitivity in children are limited. This study describes reported hypersensitivity reactions to NBLAs in children and the results of allergy evaluation.

METHODS

Children with a suspected NBLA allergy who had skin testing and/or an intravenous or oral challenge test (OCT) between May 2011 and June 2018 were included. Patients were excluded if they were >18 years old or did not complete the allergy evaluation for any reason other than allergic reaction.

RESULTS

Over the 7-year study period, 141 children had 150 allergy evaluations of 15 different NBLAs. The median time from the initial reported reaction to allergy evaluation was 1.9 (range 0.1-14.9) years. Overall, 27 of the 150 (18.0%) challenge tests to NBLAs had positive results, with the rate of positive OCT results being highest for trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (15 of 46; 32.6%) and macrolides (8 of 77; 10.4%). Although 4 children reported initial anaphylactic reactions, no patients had severe symptoms on rechallenge or required adrenaline. Of the challenges that had positive results, the majority of children (23 of 27; 85.2%) had symptoms on repeat challenge similar to those that were initially reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, 8 of 10 children with NBLA allergy could be delabeled. On average, patients waited 1.9 years to be rechallenged. Timely access to allergy evaluation to delabel these patients is needed to preserve first-line antibiotics.

A rare entity: Sympathetic ophthalmia presumably after blunt trauma to the phthisical eye and optical coherence tomography angiography metrics to monitor response to treatment

A blunt trauma to a phthisical eye may elicit sympathetic ophthalmia. Non invasive imaging such as use of optical coherence tomography and angiography metrics of the retinal and choroidal vasculature can help monitor response to the treatment.

Perioperative anaphylaxis and investigations: a local study in Hong Kong

INTRODUCTION

Data on local intraoperative anaphylaxis in Hong Kong is scarce, with few reviews available. We aimed to study the characteristics, presentations and workup results of cases referred to a local allergy clinic.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed of patient referrals and workup results for suspected intraoperative anaphylaxis at Queen Mary Hospital drug allergy clinic in 2012-2016.

RESULTS

Tryptase was checked in only 81.7% (49/60) of the cases, most of which showed elevation (71.4%, 35/49). Among the 59 patients who received a workup, 47 (79.7%) showed positive findings, with a particularly high yield in the tryptase-positive subgroup (88.6%, 31/35). Among the 54 patients who consented to skin tests (the most sensitive investigation), 43 (79.6%) cases were positive. Overall, neuromuscular blockers were the commonest cause (25.0%, 15/60) of intraoperative anaphylaxis, while antibiotics ranked second (23.3%, 14/60). The timing of reactions was an important indication of potential allergens. For example, the majority of the neuromuscular blocker allergies occurred during the induction phase, while all gelofusine allergic events were in the maintenance phase of anaesthesia. 13 (21.7%) out of 60 cases received subsequent general anaesthesia procedures, with no recurrence of allergic reactions.

CONCLUSION

Proper workup after an intraoperative anaphylactic event has a fairly good chance of identifying the causative allergen. These results are useful for patient management and the planning of subsequent anaesthetic procedures.

Recent developments and highlights in drug hypersensitivity

Drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) are nowadays the third cause of allergy after rhinitis and asthma with a significant increase in prevalence in both adults and paediatric population with new drugs included as culprit. For this, DHRs represent not only a health problem but also a significant financial burden for affected individuals and health systems. Mislabelling DHRs is showing to be a relevant problem for both, false label of drug allergic and false label of nonallergic. All this reinforces the need to improve accurate diagnostic approaches that allow an appropriate management. Moreover, there is a need for training both, nonallergist stakeholders and patients to improve the reaction identification and therefore decrease the mislabelling. The use of allergy cards has shown to be relevant to avoid the induction of DHRs due to the prescription of wrong medication. Recent developments over the last 2 years and highlights about risk factors, diagnostic approaches, mechanisms involved as well as prevention actions, and management have been reviewed. In these papers, it has been outlined the need for correct diagnosis and de-labelling of patients previously false-reported as allergic, which will improve the management and treatment of patients with DHRs.

Allergy and inhibitors in hemophilia - a rare complication with potential novel solutions

INTRODUCTION

Hemophilia is a rare bleeding disorder caused by a deficiency of the plasma coagulation factors VIII and IX (hemophilia A [HA] and hemophilia B [HB], respectively). Replacement therapy with clotting factor concentrates is the mainstay of treatment. Unlike in patients with HB, anaphylaxis in patients with HA is extremely rare.

METHODS

A retrospective study of prospectively collected data on patients with hemophilia who experienced anaphylaxis was conducted in our center. Demographic and clinical data were collected, and laboratory workups that included thrombin generation were conducted.

RESULTS

Our first patient underwent successful immune tolerance induction (ITI) following the administration of rituximab. The second patient was transitioned to emicizumab. The third patient receives recombinant activated VIIa (rFVIIa) on demand. Thrombin generation was performed following current medical management protocols for supporting hemostasis.

DISCUSSION

Our case series illustrates the difficulty in managing patients with anaphylaxis to replacement therapy. In the era of novel therapies, such as emicizumab, the management of HA patients who experience anaphylaxis to replacement therapy is becoming easier and may obviate the need for ITI. Current treatment strategies for HB patients with such anaphylaxis, however, are limited to rFVIIa, and it continues to pose a challenge.

Cross-reactivity in beta-lactams after a non-immediate cutaneous adverse reaction: experience of a reference centre for toxic bullous diseases and severe cutaneous adverse reactions

BACKGROUND

Cross-reactivity among beta-lactam antibiotics (BL) is essentially reported in immediate hypersensitivity.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate cross-reactivity beyond BLs in patients with non-immediate cutaneous adverse drug reaction (non-immediate CADR) managed in a dermatology reference centre of toxic bullous and severe CADRs.

PATIENTS/MATERIALS/METHODS

We conducted a retrospective single-centre study in consecutive patients consulting between 2010 and 2018 with an active BL-suspected non-immediate CADR and explored by cutaneous tests [patch tests (PT) and intradermal tests (P-IDR)] for at least three penicillin's subclasses and amino- and non-amino-cephalosporins (at least one aminocephalosporin). Cross-reactivity among subclasses was investigated for patients with positive tests.

RESULTS

We included 56 patients, among whom 46 amoxicillin-suspected were and seven cephalosporin-suspected. Twenty-nine had severe CADR, and 27 had non-immediate maculopapular exanthema (MPE). Twenty-two had positive tests (18 for AS and four for CS). Among the 18 positive amoxicillin-suspected, 10 (55.6%) showed cross-reactivity with one or more other BL: 9 (50%) with another penicillin and 3 (16.5%) with a non-aminocephalosporin. No amoxicillin- or cephalosporin-suspected patient showed cross-reactivity with aztreonam or carbapenems. P-IDR showed cross-reactivity only once.

CONCLUSION

After a suspected BL-induced non-immediate CADR, a large allergologic exploration is needed to confirm the diagnosis and evaluate cross-reactivity. In our population including cases of severe CADRs and MPE with late delay of onset, cross-reactivity was frequent and PT was sufficient to this purpose. The frequent cross-reactivity among penicillins encourages stopping this whole family and to test cephalosporins, aztreonam and carbapenems for which cross-allergies are rarer.

An EAACI position paper on the investigation of perioperative immediate hypersensitivity reactions

Perioperative immediate hypersensitivity reactions are rare. Subsequent allergy investigation is complicated by multiple simultaneous drug exposures, the use of drugs with potent effects and the many differential diagnoses to hypersensitivity in the perioperative setting. The approach to the investigation of these complex reactions is not standardized, and it is becoming increasingly apparent that collaboration between experts in the field of allergy/immunology/dermatology and anaesthesiology is needed to provide the best possible care for these patients. The EAACI task force behind this position paper has therefore combined the expertise of allergists, immunologists and anaesthesiologists. The aims of this position paper were to provide recommendations for the investigation of immediate-type perioperative hypersensitivity reactions and to provide practical information that can assist clinicians in planning and carrying out investigations.

Premedication for Iodinated Contrast Media Induced Immediate Hypersensitivity Reactions

Purpose of the review

Premedication using antihistamines and/or corticosteroids has been widely used to prevent reoccurrence of immediate hypersensitivity reactions (iHR) after iodinated contrast media (ICM). However, efficacy has been debated, especially in high-risk patients. Novel findings on the role and risks of premedication and preventive strategies are summarized.

Recent findings

The rate and severity of iHR occurring despite premedication indicate that premedication is not a panacea and the intensity usually reflects that of the initial reaction. Next, the number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one serious ICM-mediated event using corticosteroid-based premedication is high and associated with a diagnostic delay. Randomly changing the ICM has been suggested as an additional preventive measure, whilst others used a skin test–based approach to identify a subgroup of ICM allergic patients and negative skin test–based alternatives with a high negative predictive value.

Summary

Growing evidence indicates the need to discriminate between non-allergic iHR that are most likely non-obligatory and susceptible to premedication, and rare type I allergic iHR that can be identified using skin testing, especially in those with a severe iHR. Although premedication reduces reoccurrence of mild iHR, it is not always efficacious and should be balanced against side effects, a high NNT and an uncertain efficacy physicians should not blindly rely on. Future work should evaluate combined approaches of an allergy-driven ICM selection and endotype-driven premedication regimens in patients with non-allergic iHR.

Predictive factors for progression to chronicity or recurrence after the first attack of acute urticaria in preschool-age children

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Preschool-aged group is frequently affected by urticaria, and infections are the most frequently documented factors that cause acute urticaria in children. This prospective study was designed to investigate the underlying factors of acute urticaria in under five-year-old children and to describe predictive factors for progression to chronicity or recurrence after the first attack.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Children younger than five years of age with acute urticaria were recruited between July 2015 and July 2016. Patients (n=83) were grouped into those below and above two years of age. In order to assess the risk factors for progression to chronicity or recurrence, logistic regression analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Upper respiratory tract infection was the most common detectable reason for acute urticaria (49.4%). Herpes Simplex Virus type 1 was significantly isolated in the cases with the manifestation of an acute single-episode urticaria (p=0.042). Angioedema and food allergy were predominantly observed under two years old (p=0.001, p=0.006 respectively). A positive relationship was determined between the duration of urticaria and chronicity (r=0.301, p=0.006). The absence of atopic dermatitis (OR: 6.95, 95% CI: 1.35-35.67, p=0.020), negative Herpes virus serology (OR: 4.25, 95% CI: 0.83-21.56, p=0.040), and unknown etiology (OR: 3.30, 95% CI: 1.12-9.71, p=0.030) were the independent risk factors for recurrent urticaria.

CONCLUSIONS

Preschool-aged children with acute urticaria should be evaluated for infections at the time of admission. Patients with unknown etiology, negative Herpes virus serology, absence of atopic dermatitis, and long lasting urticaria should be followed up for chronicity and recurrence.

Chlorhexidine: a hidden life-threatening allergen

Chlorhexidine is a commonly used antiseptic and disinfectant in the health-care setting. Anaphylaxis to chlorhexidine is a rare but potentially life-threatening complication. Epidemiologic data suggest that the cases of chlorhexidine allergy appears to be increasing. In this article we report a life-threatening anaphylactic shock with cardiorespiratory arrest, during urethral catheterization due to chlorhexidine. The authors also performed a literature review of PubMed library of anaphylactic cases reports due to this antiseptic between 2014 and 2018, demonstrating the increase in the number of cases occurring worldwide and the importance of detailed anamnesis and appropriate diagnostic workup of allergic reactions to disinfectants.

Hypersensitivity reactions to antiepileptic drugs in children

BACKGROUND

Antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) can cause hypersensitivity reactions in children. These reactions are mainly cutaneous, self-limiting, and benign, but life-threatening severe cutaneous adverse reactions can occur. Infections can lead to skin eruptions and mimic drug hypersensitivity reactions, if a drug is taken at the same time. The aims of our study were to confirm or rule out the diagnosis of hypersensitivity reactions to AEDs in children and to detect an infection which mimics these reactions.

METHODS

A prospective survey was conducted in a group of 100 children with histories of hypersensitivity reactions to AEDs by performing patch tests, delayed-reading intradermal test, and, in case of negative results, challenge test. In all children, a study was performed to detect infections by viruses or Mycoplasma pneumoniae.

RESULTS

Maculopapular exanthema and delayed-appearing urticaria were the most reported hypersensitivity reactions to AEDs. Sixty-six (66%) of 100 children had confirmed hypersensitivity reactions to AEDs. Fifty-nine children had positive patch test. No children had positive challenge tests. The most common AEDs causing hypersensitivity reactions were carbamazepine (45.4%) and lamotrigine (43.6%). Thirty-two children had positive tests for viruses or M pneumoniae, and nine of them had also a positive allergy work-up.

CONCLUSION

Considering that there are no specific tests to distinguish between a viral infection and hypersensitivity reactions to AEDs in the acute phase, a diagnostic work-up should be performed in all children with suspected hypersensitivity reactions to AEDs, as well as infectious agent study, to remove a false label of hypersensitivity.

Rashes and other hypersensitivity reactions associated with antiepileptic drugs: A review of current literature

This article provides an overview of the pathogenesis and risk factors associated with antiepileptic drug (AED) hypersensitivity reactions, provides prescribing guidelines that may minimize the risk of antiepileptic induced rashes, and discusses treatment options for rashes. Articles indexed in PubMed, Science Citation, and Google Scholar (January 1946-March 2019) were systematic searched using the following key terms: hypersensitivity, rash, antiepileptic, epilepsy, cross-sensitivity, desensitization, patch testing and supplemented with our clinical experiences. Additional references were identified from a review of literature citations. AEDs are associated with cutaneous adverse reactions. Aromatic AEDs and higher titration rates are associated with increased risk of hypersensitivity reaction. Patient characteristics, underlying health conditions, and genetic variations may increase the likelihood of a hypersensitivity reaction. Once a hypersensitivity reaction occurs, the likelihood of cross sensitivity to another AED increases, especially among other aromatic AEDs. Withdrawal of the causal agent and initiation of a lower risk agent usually leads to resolution of symptoms. Desensitization protocols may be an option for patients whose seizures only respond to the AED causing the rash.

Contact urticaria: Frequency, elicitors and cofactors in three cohorts (Information Network of Departments of Dermatology; Network of Anaphylaxis; and Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Erlangen, Germany)

BACKGROUND

Contact urticaria (CU) is an infrequent, mostly occupational disease that may be life-threatening (CU syndrome stage 4).

OBJECTIVES

To identify the current frequency, elicitors and cofactors of CU.

PATIENTS

Three cohorts were retrospectively analysed for CU: (a) patients from the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK) database (2000-2014; n = 159 947); (b) patients from an allergy unit (Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Erlangen, 2000-2015; n = 4741); and (c) patients from the Anaphylaxis Registry (2007-2015: 6365 reported cases, including 2473 patients with Ring and Messmer grade III-IV reactions) for severe cases with skin/mucosal manifestations occurring at the workplace vs cases not occurring at the workplace (n = 68 vs n = 1821).

RESULTS

Four hundred and forty-eight CU patients (0.28%) were diagnosed in the IVDK cohort, and 16 (0.34%) (10 of immunological aetiology, and 6 of non-immunological aetiology) in the Erlangen cohort. The most frequent elicitors in the IVDK cohort were cosmetics, creams, sun protection agents (although these were less frequent in CU patients than in controls without CU; 26.8% vs 35.6%, P < .0001), and gloves (significantly more frequent in CU patients than in controls; 18.1% vs 6.5%, P < .0001). The most frequent elicitors in the Erlangen cohort were natural rubber latex and sorbic acid. Among the MOAHLFA index characteristics, in both cohorts occupational disease was more common in CU patients than in patients without CU. CU was significantly associated with allergic rhinitis and allergic asthma. Wet work was a relevant cofactor. In the Anaphylaxis Registry, 19 cases (0.3%) were identified with severe reactions including skin symptoms at the workplace linked to common occupational elicitors.

CONCLUSIONS

CU is a rare occupational skin manifestation with a frequency of <0.4% in the examined patients; it may, however, progress to anaphylaxis. Preventive measures are important, and should take into account the identified elicitors and cofactors.

Peri-Operative Anaphylaxis-An Investigational Challenge

Patients with suspected peri-operative anaphylaxis (POP) require thorough investigation to identify underlying trigger(s) and enable safe anesthesia for subsequent surgery. The changing epidemiology of POP has been striking. Previous estimates of the incidence of POP have ranged between 1:6,000 and1:20,000 anesthetics, but more recent data from France and the United Kingdom suggest an estimated incidence of 1:10,000. Other important changes include a change in the hierarchy of well-recognized triggers, with antibiotics (beta-lactams) supplanting neuromuscular blockers (NMB) as the leading cause of POP. The emergence of chlorhexidine, patent blue dye, and teicoplanin as important triggers have also been noteworthy findings. The mainstay of investigation revolves around critical analysis of the time-line of events leading up to anaphylaxis coupled with judicious skin testing. Skin tests have limitations with respect to unknown predictive values for most drugs/agents and therefore, knowledge of background positivity in healthy controls, test characteristics of individual drugs and the use of non-irritant concentrations is essential to avoid both false-positive and false-negative results. Specific IgE assays for individual drugs are available only for a limited number of agents and are not a substitute for skin testing. Acute serum total tryptase has a high specificity and positive predictive value in IgE-mediated POP anaphylaxis but is limited by its moderate sensitivity and negative predictive value. Planning for safe anesthesia in this group of patients is particularly challenging and consequently anesthetists need to be alert to the possibility of repeat episodes of anaphylaxis. Because of the limitations of current investigations for POP, collecting systematic data on the outcome of repeat anesthesia is valuable in validating current investigatory approaches. This paper reviews the changing epidemiology of POP with reference to the main triggers, and the investigation and outcome of subsequent anesthesia.

A EAACI drug allergy interest group survey on how European allergy specialists deal with β-lactam allergy

An accurate diagnosis of β-lactam (BL) allergy can reduce patient morbidity and mortality. Our aim was to investigate the availability of BL reagents, their use and test procedures in different parts of Europe, as well as any differences in the diagnostic workups for evaluating subjects with BL hypersensitivity. A survey was emailed to all members of the EAACI Drug Allergy Interest Group (DAIG) between February and April 2016, and the questionnaire was meant to study the management of suspected BL hypersensitivity. The questionnaire was emailed to 82 DAIG centres and answered by 57. Amoxicillin alone or combined to clavulanic acid were the most commonly involved BL except in the Danish centre, where penicillin V was the most frequently suspected BL. All centres performed an allergy workup in subjects with histories of hypersensitivity to BL: 53 centres (93%) followed DAIG guidelines, two national guidelines and two local guidelines. However, there were deviations from DAIG recommendations concerning allergy tests, especially drug provocation tests. A significant heterogeneity exists in current practice not only among countries, but also among centres within the same country. This suggests the need to re-evaluate, update and standardize protocols on the management of patients with suspected BL allergy.

Skin tests are important in children with β-lactam hypersensitivity, but may be reduced in number

BACKGROUND

There is no perfect agreement on how to perform an allergy workup in suspected beta-lactam (BL)-allergic children, since skin test (ST)-induced pain is often a limitation. The aim of the study was to assess the possibility of reducing the number of ST in children when performing a complete allergy workup for BL hypersensitivity reactions.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of all patients referring to the Allergy Unit of the University Hospital of Montpellier (France) with positive responses in immediateand non-immediate-reading ST to a BL over a 16-year period was performed, to determine the positive predictive value (PPV) of ST. All pediatric patients with a suspected BL hypersensitivity were skin-tested with the suspected drug only, during the following 54 months.

RESULTS

A total of 319 patients reporting 328 BL reactions were included in the retrospective study. The PPV of ST for the reported drug was of 99.4%. Based on the results, the number of patients to include in the prospective study was estimated to be 101. In the prospective study, 229 children were included. We diagnosed a BL hypersensitivity in 12 children (5.2%): Diagnosis was reached in 6 (50.0%) through ST (delayed reading for all) and in 6 through drug provocation test (DPT).

CONCLUSION

ST with BL should therefore be performed as a screening test, before DPT, and testing only the suspected drug may be sufficient when dealing with children.

Fentanyl-associated anaphylaxis in an infant with tetralogy of Fallot: a case report

Background

Anaphylactic reactions to opioids are rare. We report a case of an infant who experienced fentanyl-induced anaphylaxis.

Case presentation

A 2-month-old male was scheduled to undergo a Blalock-Taussig shunt. Following uneventful anesthetic induction, he experienced profound hypotension and generalized erythema. Anaphylaxis was clinically diagnosed, and he was treated with epinephrine, vasopressin, and fluids. The surgery was canceled, and he was transferred to the intensive care unit after restoration of his hemodynamic status. Intradermal testing was performed for all of the drugs given during the anaphylactic event on postoperative day (POD) 3. The results showed a positive reaction to fentanyl. For the second anesthesia scheduled on POD 5, morphine sulfate was selected as an alternative opioid. Anesthesia was maintained uneventfully with sevoflurane, morphine, and rocuronium.

Conclusion

Intradermal testing revealed fentanyl anaphylaxis. We were able to manage the patient by using of morphine as an alternative opioid for the subsequent anesthesia.

Diagnosis and management of drug-induced anaphylaxis in children: An EAACI position paper

Drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHR) constitute a major and common public health problem, particularly in children. One of the most severe manifestations of DHR is anaphylaxis, which might be associated with a life-threatening risk. During those past decades, anaphylaxis has received particularly a lot of attention and international consensus guidelines have been recently published. Whilst drug-induced anaphylaxis is more commonly reported in adulthood, less is known about the role of drugs in pediatric anaphylaxis. Betalactam antibiotics and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are the most commonly involved drugs, probably related to high prescription rates. Diagnosis relies on the recognition of symptoms pattern and is based on complete allergic workup, particularly including skin tests and/or specific IgE. However, the real diagnostic value of those tests to diagnose immediate reactions in children remains not well defined for a significant number of the drugs. Generally, a drug provocation test is discussed to confirm or exclude an immediate-onset drug-induced hypersensitivity. Although avoidance of the incriminated drug (and related drug) is the rule, rapid desensitization is useful in selected subgroups of patients. There is a need for large, multicentric studies, to evaluate the real diagnostic value of the currently available skin tests. Moreover there is also a need to develop new diagnostic tests in the future to improve the management of these children.

Chlorhexidine allergy in the perioperative setting: a narrative review

Chlorhexidine is an antiseptic with a broad spectrum of activity and a persistent effect on skin. Consequently, it has become an ubiquitous antiseptic in healthcare and the community. As use has become widespread, increasing numbers of cases of allergy have been reported in the literature, including cases of anaphylaxis to chlorhexidine gels used on mucous membranes, chlorhexidine-impregnated devices such as central venous catheters, chlorhexidine preparations used on wounds and broken skin, and cases after dental procedures. Numerous governmental warnings have been issued over recent decades to warn of the risk of allergy to chlorhexidine on mucosal surfaces or in medical devices. Whilst the number of published cases likely underestimates the true prevalence of reactions, we retrospectively surveyed clinics with experience in investigating perioperative chlorhexidine allergy. Despite differences in investigation practice before the survey took place, 13 clinics responded which together had diagnosed 252 cases of anaphylaxis to chlorhexidine, and cases of delayed allergy. In eight of 13 clinics, chlorhexidine was within the top four most commonly diagnosed causes of perioperative anaphylaxis. Despite this, the incidence of anaphylaxis to chlorhexidine is low given that patients are very commonly exposed. Sensitisation of healthcare workers can occur, but is uncommon. Before exposing patients to this antiseptic, consideration of the potential risk vs benefit should be undertaken, particularly for higher risk exposures, such as mucosal exposure or i.v. exposure via impregnated lines. Difficulties exist in protecting patients with known allergies from re-exposure to chlorhexidine, which would be improved with uniform labelling and chlorhexidine product registers.