Cellular in vitro diagnosis of adverse drug reactions

Perioperative Anaphylaxis: Evaluation and Management

Perioperative anaphylaxis (PA) is a rare but life-threatening condition that poses diagnostic and management challenges in the operating room. The incidence of severe perioperative reactions is estimated to be approximately 1:7000-10,000. Management involves both immediate stabilization of the patient and identifying the culprit agent. Identification is essential to prevent recurrence of the event in subsequent surgeries and to avoid unnecessary labeling of drug allergy. Identifying all possible exposures including medications, disinfectants, latex, and dyes and choosing the appropriate tests are essential for proper evaluation. To identify the culprit, primary testing modalities include tryptase at the time of the reaction with subsequent levels and skin testing with nonirritating concentrations to the medications and substances utilized during the procedure and those potentially used as alternates. This strategy provides guidance for future surgeries and procedures. Close collaboration between the allergy, anesthesiology, and surgery teams is essential for appropriate management of these patients at the time of the reaction, during the post event evaluation and in preparation for subsequent surgeries.

Praktischer Umgang mit allergischen Reaktionen auf COVID-19-Impfstoffe

Hintergrund: Zur vorbeugenden Behandlung von COVID-19 (Coronaviruserkrankung 2019) wurden in einer beispiellosen weltweiten Forschungsanstrengung Sicherheit und Wirksamkeit neuer Impfstoffplattformen studiert, die noch nie zuvor am Menschen eingesetzt wurden. Weniger als ein Jahr nach der Entdeckung der SARS-CoV-2-Virussequenz (SARS-CoV-2, "severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2") wurden diese in zahlreichen Ländern für den Einsatz zugelassen und es wurde mit Massenimpfungen begonnen. Die bislang in der Europäischen Union (EU) zugelassenen mRNA-Impfstoffe (mRNA, "messenger"-RNA) gegen SARS-CoV-2 BNT162b2 und mRNA-1273 basieren auf einer ähnlichen lipidbasierten Nanopartikelträgertechnologie; die Lipidkomponenten unterscheiden sich jedoch. Schwere allergische Reaktionen und Anaphylaxien nach COVID-19-Impfungen sind sehr seltene unerwünschte Nebenwirkungen, die aber aufgrund potenziell letaler Ausgänge viel Aufmerksamkeit erhalten und ein hohes Maß an Verunsicherung ausgelöst haben.

Methoden: Das aktuelle Wissen zu anaphylaktischen Reaktionen auf Impfstoffe und speziell zu den derzeit neuen mRNA-COVID-19-Impfstoffen wurde zusammengestellt mittels einer Literaturanalyse durch Recherchen in Medline, Pubmed sowie den nationalen und internationalen Studien- und Leitlinienregistern, der Cochrane Library und dem Internet unter besonderer Berücksichtigung offizieller Webseiten der World Health Oranization (WHO), der Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), der European Medicines Agency (EMA), des Robert-Koch-Instituts (RKI) und des Paul-Ehrlich-Instituts (PEI).

Ergebnisse: Basierend auf der internationalen Literatur und bisheriger Erfahrungen zu schweren allergischen Reaktionen im Kontext der COVID-19-Impfungen werden von einem Expertengremium Empfehlungen für Prophylaxe, Diagnostik und Therapie dieser allergischen Reaktionen gegeben.

Schlussfolgerung: Vor einer COVID-19-Impfung mit den derzeit zugelassenen Impfstoffen sind Allergietests für die allermeisten Allergiker nicht notwendig. Bei allergischer/anaphylaktischer Reaktion auf den verabreichten COVID-19-Impfstoff wird eine allergologische Abklärung empfohlen, wie auch für eine kleine potenzielle Risikopopulation vor der ersten Impfung. Die Evaluierung und Zulassung von Testverfahren sollten hierfür erfolgen.

Zitierweise: Klimek L, Bergmann K-C, Brehler R, Pfützner W, Zuberbier T, Hartmann K, Jakob T, Novak N, Ring J, Merk H; Hamelmann E, Ankermann T, Schmidt S, Untersmayr E, Hötzenecker W, Jensen-Jarolim E, Brockow K, Mahler V, Worm M. Practical Handling of Allergic Reactions to COVID-19 vaccines. A Position Paper from German and Austrian Allergy Societies AeDA, DGAKI, GPA and ÖGAI. Allergo J Int 2021;30:79-95

https: //doi.org/10.1007/s40629-021-00165-7

Practical handling of allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines: A position paper from German and Austrian Allergy Societies AeDA, DGAKI, GPA and ÖGAI

BACKGROUND

For the preventive treatment of the 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) an unprecedented global research effort studied the safety and efficacy of new vaccine platforms that have not been previously used in humans. Less than one year after the discovery of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) viral sequence, these vaccines were approved for use in the European Union (EU) as well as in numerous other countries and mass vaccination efforts began. The so far in the EU approved mRNA vaccines BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 are based on similar lipid-based nanoparticle carrier technologies; however, the lipid components differ. Severe allergic reactions and anaphylaxis after COVID-19 vaccination are very rare adverse events but have drawn attention due to potentially lethal outcomes and have triggered a high degree of uncertainty.

METHODS

Current knowledge on anaphylactic reactions to vaccines and specifically the new mRNA COVID-19 vaccines was compiled using a literature search in Medline, PubMed, as well as the national and international study and guideline registries, the Cochrane Library, and the Internet, with special reference to official websites of the World Health Organization (WHO), US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Robert Koch Institute (RKI), and Paul Ehrlich Institute (PEI).

RESULTS

Based on the international literature and previous experience, recommendations for prophylaxis, diagnosis and therapy of these allergic reactions are given by a panel of experts.

CONCLUSION

Allergy testing is not necessary for the vast majority of allergic patients prior to COVID-19 vaccination with currently licensed vaccines. In case of allergic/anaphylactic reactions after vaccination, allergy workup is recommended, as it is for a small potential risk population prior to the first vaccination. Evaluation and approval of diagnostic tests should be done for this purpose.

Guideline on diagnostic procedures for suspected hypersensitivity to beta-lactam antibiotics: Guideline of the German Society for Allergology and Clinical Immunology (DGAKI) in collaboration with the German Society of Allergology (AeDA), German Society for Pediatric Allergology and Environmental Medicine (GPA), the German Contact Dermatitis Research Group (DKG), the Austrian Society for Allergology and Immunology (ÖGAI), and the Paul-Ehrlich Society for Chemotherapy (PEG)

This guideline on diagnostic procedures for suspected beta-lactam antibiotic (BLA) hypersensitivity was written by the German and Austrian professional associations for allergology, and the Paul-Ehrlich Society for Chemotherapy in a consensus procedure according to the criteria of the German Association of Scientific Medical Societies. BLA such as penicillins and cephalosporins represent the drug group that most frequently triggers drug allergies. However, the frequency of reports of suspected allergy in patient histories clearly exceeds the number of confirmed cases. The large number of suspected BLA allergies has a significant impact on, e.g., the quality of treatment received by the individual patient and the costs to society as a whole. Allergies to BLA are based on different immunological mechanisms and often manifest as maculopapular exanthema, as well as anaphylaxis; and there are also a number of less frequent special clinical manifestations of drug allergic reactions. All BLA have a beta-lactam ring. BLA are categorized into different classes: penicillins, cephalosporins, carbapenems, monobactams, and beta-lactamase inhibitors with different chemical structures. Knowledge of possible cross-reactivity is of considerable clinical significance. Whereas allergy to the common beta-lactam ring occurs in only a small percentage of all BLA allergic patients, cross-reactivity due to side chain similarities, such as aminopenicillins and aminocephalosporins, and even methoxyimino cephalosporins, are more common. However, the overall picture is complex and its elucidation may require further research. Diagnostic procedures used in BLA allergy are usually made up of four components: patient history, laboratory diagnostics, skin testing (which is particularly important), and drug provocation testing. The diagnostic approach - even in cases where the need to administer a BLA is acute - is guided by patient history and risk - benefit ratio in the individual case. Here again, further studies are required to extend the present state of knowledge. Performing allergy testing for suspected BLA hypersensitivity is urgently recommended not only in the interests of providing the patient with good medical care, but also due to the immense impact of putative BLA allergies on society as a whole.

Perioperative drug reactions - practical recommendations for allergy testing and patient management

Background

Allergy testing for perioperative drug reactions poses a particular diagnostic challenge. Neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBA) and antibiotics are among the most common triggers. In principle, however, any drug administered perioperatively is capable of causing a hypersensitivity reaction.

Methods

This article is an overview of selected scientific articles and is based on research in PubMed, specialist databases, and guidelines.

Results

Besides patient's history and laboratory tests (the latter being feasible to only a limited extent), skin tests play a particularly important role. To obtain clinical relevant results, profound knowledge on the best point in time for testing, the drug concentrations to be used, how to perform tests correctly, and the assessment criteria is of special importance.

Conclusion

Final outcomes of the diagnostic procedures should be providing thorough information of the patient about the findings, drugs that should be avoided in the future as well as alternative preparations, and, if necessary, preventive measures to be taken in the event of further surgical interventions.

Tools to investigate and avoid drug-hypersensitivity in drug development

INTRODUCTION

Drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) are common adverse effects of pharmaceuticals that clinically resemble allergies, and which are becoming an important burden to healthcare systems. Alongside accurate diagnostic techniques, tools which can predict potential drug-inducing hypersensitivity reactions in the pre-clinical phase are critical. Despite the important adverse reactions linked to immune-mediated hypersensitivity, at present, there are no validated or required in vivo or in vitro methods to screen the sensitizing potential of drugs and their metabolites in the pre-clinical phase. Areas covered: Enhanced prediction in preclinical safety evaluation is extremely important. The purpose of this review is to assess the state of the art of tools available to assess the allergenic potential of drugs and to highlight our current understanding of the molecular mechanisms underlying inappropriate immune activation. Expert opinion: The knowledge that allergenic drugs share common mechanisms of immune cell activation with chemical allergens, and of the definition of the mechanistic pathway to adverse outcomes, can enhance targeting toxicity testing in drug development and hazard assessment of hypersensitivity. Additional efforts and extensive resources are necessary to improve preclinical testing methodologies, including optimization, better design and interpretation of data.

In Vitro Research Tools in the Field of Human Immediate Drug Hypersensitivity and Their Present Use in Small Animal Veterinary Medicine

Drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHR) are immune-mediated idiosyncratic adverse drug events. Type I DHR are often referred to as "immediate" and involve B lymphocyte-secreted IgE that bind to the membrane of basophils and mast cells, inducing their degranulation. This review presents various in vitro tests that were developed in the field of human type I HS and implemented as clinical diagnostic tools in human cases of immediate DHR. The respective strengths and weaknesses of each test will be discussed in parallel of validation data such as specificity and sensitivity whenever available. Some of them have also been used as diagnostic tools in veterinary medicine, but not in cases of immediate DHR. Most of these diagnostic tools can be categorized into humoral and cellular tests. The former tests measure serum concentrations of factors, such as histamine, tryptase, and drug-specific IgE. The latter assays quantify markers of drug-induced basophil activation or drug-specific lymphocyte proliferation. Pharmacogenetic markers have also been investigated in immediate DHR, but not as extensively as in non-immediate ones. Throughout, practical aspects and limitations of the tests, as well as sensitivity and specificity parameters, will be presented. In addition, the experience of veterinary medicine with these diagnostic tools will be summarized. However, to date, none of them has ever been reported in a veterinary case of type I DHR.

Mesalazine allergy in a boy with ulcerative colitis: clinical usefulness of mucosal biopsy criteria

5-Aminosalicylic acid preparations have been used as first-line drugs for treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC). However, some patients with UC present with exacerbation of symptoms because of allergy to mesalazine. Diagnosis of mesalazine allergy in active UC may be challenging because its symptoms mimic those of UC. Here we describe a 13-year-old boy with mesalazine allergy who achieved remission when his medication was changed from mesalazine to salazosulfapyridine. During his clinical course mesalazine was prescribed twice, and on each occasion exacerbation of the symptoms occurred. We considered a diagnosis of mesalazine allergy, and this was confirmed by a drug lymphocyte stimulation test; the result for salazosulfapyridine was negative. On the basis of criteria involving simple mucosal biopsy combined with endoscopy for predicting patients with UC who would ultimately require surgery, we considered that the UC in this case might be susceptible to steroid treatment, and we therefore treated the patient with salazosulfapyridine and prednisolone. Shortly afterwards, remission was achieved and the patient has remained in good condition on salazosulfapyridine alone. When treating patients with mesalazine, the possibility of allergy should always be borne in mind, especially when the clinical course is inconsistent with the results of biopsy.