Drug allergy in tertiary care in Turkey: results of a national survey. The ADAPT study: adult drug allergy perception in Turkey

Drug-induced hypersensitivity reactions in a Lebanese outpatient population: A decade-long retrospective analysis (2012-2021)

Background

Drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) are becoming more common as a result of increasing prevalence and case complexity. Allergists and clinical immunologists worldwide are challenged daily to adequately diagnose and manage these reactions. Data in the literature regarding DHR outpatient consultations are scarce worldwide, limited in the Middle East, and currently unavailable in Lebanon.

Objective

This retrospective study aimed to evaluate the characteristics of all reported DHRs over 10 years in a tertiary-care allergy clinic in Lebanon.

Methods

We conducted a decade-long (2012-21) retrospective analysis of the archived medical records of patients with a history of DHRs. Demographics, clinical history, diagnostic tools, and characteristics of the DHRs were collected and analyzed.

Results

A total of 758 patients experienced DHRs to therapeutic molecules provided for ambulatory care. Our results identified 72 medications. The most frequently implicated drug classes included β-lactam antibiotics (53.8%), followed closely by nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (48.9%). Of the 758 patients, 32.6% reported DHRs to multiple molecules, and 11.8% reported concomitant DHRs to 1 or several molecules provided in the perioperative setting. Of those, opioids and neuromuscular blocking agents were the 2 most common therapeutic classes. Furthermore, we evaluated the cross-reactivity between molecules of the same class. In neuromuscular blocking agents, rocuronium and cisatracurium were the most commonly cross-reactive, and for opioids, the most common association we recorded was with morphine and pethidine.

Conclusion

Our findings constitute the first step toward a more comprehensive evaluation of the clinical characteristics of DHRs in Lebanon.

Latin American anaphylaxis registry

Background

Recent data about clinical features, triggers and management of anaphylaxis in Latin America is lacking.

Objective

To provide updated and extended data on anaphylaxis in this region.

Method

An online questionnaire was used, with 67 allergy units involved from 12 Latin-American countries and Spain. Among data recorded, demographic information, clinical features, severity, triggering agents, and treatment were received.

Results

Eight hundred and seventeen anaphylactic reactions were recorded. No difference in severity, regardless of pre-existing allergy or asthma history was found. Drug induced anaphylaxis (DIA) was most frequent (40.6%), followed by food induced anaphylaxis (FIA) (32.9%) and venom induced anaphylaxis (VIA) (12%). FIA and VIA were more common in children-adolescents. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and beta-lactam antibiotics (BLA) were the most frequent drugs involved. Milk (61.1% of FIA) and egg (15.4% of FIA) in children, and shellfish (25.5% of FIA), fresh fruits (14.2% of FIA), and fish (11.3% of FIA) in adults were the most common FIA triggers. Fire ants were the most frequent insect triggers, and they induced more severe reactions than triggers of FIA and DIA (p < 0.0001). Epinephrine was used in 43.8% of anaphylaxis episodes. After Emergency Department treatment, epinephrine was prescribed to 13% of patients.

Conclusions

Drugs (NSAIDs and BLA), foods (milk and egg in children and shellfish, fruits and fish in adults) and fire ants were the most common inducers of anaphylaxis. Epinephrine was used in less than half of the episodes emphasizing the urgent need to improve dissemination and implementation of anaphylaxis guidelines.

Allergic reactions due to concomitant administration of multiple drugs in intravenous fluid in emergency departments in Turkey

The present study aimed to evaluate patients who were referred to adult allergy clinic due to allergic reactions after concomitant multiple intravenous-drug administrations in Emergency Department (ED). Between January 2017 and January 2019, patients admitted to our allergy clinic with hypersensitivity reactions to intravenous drugs administered in ED were included retrospectively. Fifty-seven patients who developed allergic reactions after intravenous drug administration in EDs were evaluated. Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs (NSAIDs) were the most common cause of allergic reactions (n = 40, 70.2%). Skin Prick Tests (SPT) were positive in 6 (10.5%) patients. Drug Provocation Tests (DPT) were positive in 10 (17.5%) patients. No significant correlation was found between the total number of drugs in the intravenous fluid and the degree of allergic reaction (r = -0.145, p = 0.282). There was no statistically significant difference between the degree of allergic reaction and history of atopic disease (p = 0.579). In conclusion, concomitant administration of multiple drugs in intravenous fluids may increase the risk of allergic reactions.

Drug Allergy Profile From a National Drug Allergy Registry

Background: Drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) are among the most frequent reasons for consultation in allergy departments and are becoming more common due to increasing prevalence and case complexity.

Objective: To describe the most common drugs associated with clinical reactions, diagnostic methods used, and outcomes of allergic evaluations of a national drug allergy registry over a 12-year period were used.

Methods: An observational, prospective, patient’s data registry-based study was conducted to analyze all referrals to the drug allergy outpatient clinics at Al-Rashed Allergy Center, Kuwait, between 2007 and 2019. Demographics, description of DHRs, and results of allergy tests to potential causative medications were reviewed. Diagnostic methods were focused mainly on skin tests (STs) and drug provocation test (DPT), when indicated.

Results: We evaluated 1,553 patients with reported DHRs. The mean age of the population was 41.52 ± 16.93 years, and the study population consisted of 63.7% female patients. Hypersensitivity was finally confirmed in 645 (41.5%) of patients, probable in 199 (12.8%), and not confirmed/nonallergic in 709 (45.6%) patients. Anti-inflammatory drugs and analgesics contributed to 39.22% of all confirmed drug allergies, followed by antibiotics 38.1% (β-lactam antibiotics (BLs) constituted 73.98% of all antibiotics and 28.21% of all drugs), anesthetics 1.8%, and radio-contrast media 0.31%. The majority of reactions were non-immediate 51.44%. The most commonly presenting symptoms among confirmed patients were urticaria 57.80%, angioedema 42.50%, respiratory symptoms 47.60%, and erythema 33.60%. Symptoms of anaphylaxis/anaphylactic shock were reported by 284 patients (44.00%) among confirmed cases. The most common method of diagnosis was a positive clinical history (54.4% in BLs and 90.45% in nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Among confirmed allergy to BLs, a positive ST was obtained in 31.9% of patients and positive DPT in 13.7%.

Conclusion: NSAIDs and antibiotics, mainly BLs, are the most commonly implicated in confirmed allergy. In both confirmed and not confirmed/nonallergic cases, BLs are the most frequently involved DHRs which are mainly immediate, and the most commonly presenting symptoms were urticaria, angioedema, and respiratory symptoms. Diagnosis was confirmed mainly by a positive clinical history and when indicated, by positive STs or a DPT.

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.

NSAIDs hypersensitivity: questions not resolved

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

NSAIDs are the drugs most frequently involved in hypersensitivity reactions (HSR). These are frequently prescribed at all ages. HSR are of great concern and can affect people at any age. These drugs can induce reactions by stimulating the adaptive immune system (IgE or T cell), known as selective responders or more frequently by abnormalities in biochemical pathways related with prostaglandin metabolism. These are known as cross-intolerant. With some exceptions, skin testing and in-vitro studies are of little value in selective responders.

RECENT FINDINGS

In the last years, several classifications have been provided based on clinical symptoms, time interval between drug intake and appearance of symptoms, response to other nonchemically related NSAIDs and the underlying disease. Based on this classification, several well differentiated categories within each group of entities cross-intolerant and selective responders are now recognized. The most complex groups for evaluation are cross-intolerant in which three major groups exist: NSAIDs exacerbated respiratory disease, NSAIDs exacerbated cutaneous disease and NSAIDs-induced urticaria/angioedema in the absence of chronic spontaneous urticaria. Within the selective responders, there are two mechanisms involved: drug-specific IgE or T-cell effector responses. New entities have been added to this classification like mixed reactions within the cross-intolerant category, that must manifest as anaphylaxis and multiple immediate selective reactions.

SUMMARY

The precise evaluation of patients with NSAIDs hypersensitivity following established guidelines will improve not only our understanding but also the management of these entities. As the number of patients affected with NSAIDs is important, further studies are warranted.

Epidemiology of drug hypersensitivity reactions using 6-year national health insurance claim data from Korea

Background Drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) constitute a large portion of adverse drug reactions (ADRs), but studies for DHR incidence based on national data are scarce. Objective This study aimed to estimate the incidence and patterns of DHRs in a Korean population and the associated utilization of medical resources using the national claims data. Setting The retrospective cohort study performed using the national insurance claim database of the Health Insurance Review and Assessment (HIRA) in Korea. Methods The International Classification of Disease 10th revision code was used to identify DHRs with 20 drug induced DHR codes. The claim data with a diagnosis of DHR in the 2009-2014 periods were analyzed. Main outcome and measure The annual incidence and the 6-year incidence rates were calculated. Incidence rate coefficients were analyzed by sex, age, and year. DHRs following with visits of emergency department (ED) or intensive care unit (ICU) were assessed for utilization of medical resources and risk of ER or ICU visits by sex and age Results A total of 535,049 patients with 1,083,507 claims were assessed in the HIRA database for 6 years. DHR incidence was high in the elderly. The risk of ED and ICU visit with DHR was also higher in the elderly than in the young [highest relative risk, RR of ED 2.59 (1.65-4.07), ICU 5.04 (2.50-10.18)]. DHRs related to blood were high in the young age. Conclusion Incidence of DHRs in the real-world clinical practice was higher in the elderly and female. Clinical consequence was more severe in the elderly.

Self-report prevalence and associated factors to drug hypersensitivity in Mexican young adults

Background

Drug hypersensitivity is defined as any unfavorable reaction that occurs after the administration of any drug. It may or may not be mediated by the involvement of the immune system. Epidemiological data related to drug hypersensitivity reactions in our country are scarce.

Objective

To determine the prevalence of drug hypersensitivity in a group of young adults, as well as to identify associated factors.

Methods

A structured questionnaire was applied to young people aged 18 to 25 years. The instrument was oriented to identify reactions of drug hypersensitivity, as well as the most prevalent drugs involved. In addition, a personal and family history of atopic diseases was included. Analysis for associations between variables was been done through logistic regression.

Results

The prevalence of drug hypersensitivity reactions was 12% (144 of 1,200). The antibiotics were the agents most related to hypersensitivity reactions (9.8%) followed by nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (1.6%). Factors associated with drug hypersensitivity were a personal history of asthma, odds ratio (OR) 3.15 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.44–6.91), maternal and paternal history of drug hypersensitivity, OR 2.33 (95% CI, 1.21–4.48) and OR 3.11 (95% CI, 1.22–7.92), respectively.

Conclusion

The results of this research show that drug hypersensitivity in young adults is a highly prevalent event and it is associated with personal history of asthma and history of drug hypersensitivity in parents.

Pro and Contra: Provocation Tests in Drug Hypersensitivity

Drug provocation test (DPT) is the controlled administration of a drug to diagnose immune- or non-immune-mediated drug hypersensitivity and the last step for accurate recognition of drug hypersensitivity reactions when the previous diagnostic evaluations are negative or unavailable. A DPT is performed only if other conventional tests fail to yield conclusive results. In each clinical presentation, "to provoke or not to provoke" a patient should be decided after careful assessment of the risk-benefit ratio. Well-defined benefits of DPT include confirmative exclusion of diagnoses of drug hypersensitivity and provision of safe alternatives. However, disadvantages such as safety, difficulty in interpretations of results, lack of objective biomarkers, risks of resensitization, efficiency in daily practice, and lack of standardized protocols, are poorly debated. This review summarizes the current published research concerning DPT, with particular emphasis on the advantages and disadvantages of DPT in an evidence-based manner.

Evaluation of drug provocation test-related anxiety in patients with drug hypersensitivity

BACKGROUND

Drug provocation tests (DPTs) are important in the treatment of patients with drug hypersensitivity (DH), but they carry certain hypersensitivity reaction risks, which lead to procedure-related concerns in patients.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate DPT-related anxiety and its effect on long-term use of tested drugs.

METHODS

The study included patients who underwent DPT from July 1, 2009, to July 1, 2012. After recording the patients' history and characteristics, a variety of psychiatric (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Panic and Agoraphobia Scale, and the Maudsley Obsessive-Compulsive Inventory) and quality-of-life (36-item Short Form Health Survey) tests were performed. DPT-related anxiety was also evaluated using a visual analog scale. The patients were requestioned about whether they had used the tested drug within 1 year.

RESULTS

A total of 126 patients were included in the study. According to the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, 23.4% and 30.6% of the patients had depression and anxiety symptoms, respectively. The mean (SD) visual analog scale anxiety scores after a negative DPT result were lower than those before DPTs (2 [2.5] after vs 5.2 [3.4] before; P < .001). In the long term, 15.9% of the patients did not use the drug because of ongoing anxiety related to drug reactions, despite negative DPT results and symptoms indicated for use of the drug.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that DPTs in themselves cause significant anxiety in patients with DH. Importantly, anxiety levels decreased after a negative test result. However, our results also suggested that a negative DPT result is not convincing enough for some patients to use the tested drug when needed in the future. Therefore, supporting strategies appear to be the most effective way to eliminate DH-related anxiety of patients.

Drug-Induced Anaphylaxis in Latin American Countries

BACKGROUND

Information regarding the clinical features and management of drug-induced anaphylaxis (DIA) in Latin America is lacking.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to assess implicated medications, demographics, and treatments received for DIA in Latin American patients referred to national specialty centers for evaluation.

METHOD

A database previously used to compile information on drug-induced allergic reactions in 11 Latin American countries was used to identify and characterize patients presenting specifically with a clinical diagnosis of DIA. Information regarding clinical presentation, causative agent(s), diagnostic studies performed, treatment, and contributing factors associated with increased reaction severity was analyzed.

RESULTS

There were 1005 patients evaluated for possible drug hypersensitivity reactions during the study interval, and 264 (26.3%) met criteria for DIA. DIA was more frequent in adults and in elderly females (N = 129 [76.6%] and N = 30 [75%], respectively) compared with children and/or adolescents (N = 21 [42.9%], P < .01). Severe DIA was less frequent with underlying asthma (N = 22 vs 35 [38.6% vs 61.4%], P < .05) or atopy (N = 62 vs 71 [43% vs 59% ], P < .01). Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (N = 178 [57.8%]), beta-lactam antibiotics (N = 44 [14.3%]), and other antibiotics (N = 16 [5.2%]) were the most frequently implicated drug classes. Anaphylaxis was rated as severe in N = 133 (50.4%) and anaphylactic shock (AS) was present in N = 90 (34.1%). Epinephrine was only used in N = 73 (27.6%) overall, but in N = 70 (77.8%) of patients with AS.

CONCLUSION

In Latin American patients referred for evaluation of DIA, NSAIDs and antibiotics were implicated in approximately 80% of cases. Most of these reactions were treated in the emergency department. Epinephrine was administered in only 27.6% of all cases, although more frequently for anaphylactic shock. Dissemination of anaphylaxis guidelines among emergency department physicians should be encouraged to improve management of DIA.

Multinational experience with hypersensitivity drug reactions in Latin America

BACKGROUND

Epidemiologic drug allergy data from Latin America are scarce, and there are no studies on specific procedures focusing on this topic in Latin America.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the clinical characteristics and management of hypersensitivity drug reactions in different Latin American countries.

METHODS

An European Network of Drug Allergy questionnaire survey was implemented in 22 allergy units in 11 Latin American countries to report on consecutive patients who presented with a suspected hypersensitivity drug reaction. Each unit used its own protocols to investigate patients.

RESULTS

Included were 868 hypersensitivity drug reactions in 862 patients (71% of adults and elderly patients were women and 51% of children were girls, P = .0001). Children presented with less severe reactions than adults and elderly patients (P < .0001). Urticaria and angioedema accounted for the most frequent clinical presentations (71%), whereas anaphylaxis was present in 27.3% of cases. There were no deaths reported. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (52.3%), β-lactam antibiotics (13.8%), and other antibiotics (10.1%) were the drugs used most frequently. Skin prick tests (16.7%) and provocation tests (34.2%) were the study procedures most commonly used. A large proportion of patients were treated in the emergency department (62%) with antihistamines (68%) and/or corticosteroids (53%). Only 22.8% of patients presenting with anaphylaxis received epinephrine.

CONCLUSION

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and antibiotics were the drugs used in at least 75% of patients. More than half the reactions were treated in the emergency department, whereas epinephrine was administered in fewer than 25% of patients with anaphylaxis. Dissemination of guidelines for anaphylaxis among primary and emergency department physicians should be encouraged.