Safety of subsequent general anaesthesia in patients allergic to neuromuscular blocking agents: value of allergy skin testing

Epidemiology of perioperative anaphylaxis in France in 2017-2018: the 11th GERAP survey

BACKGROUND

Perioperative anaphylaxis is rare but is associated with significant morbidity. This complication has been well described in France by the GERAP (Groupe d'Etude des Réactions Anaphylactiques Périopératoires), a network focused on its study. The epidemiology of perioperative anaphylaxis is evolving, influenced by environmental factors and clinical practice. The aim of this study was to update the epidemiology of perioperative anaphylaxis in France.

METHODS

This multicentre retrospective study was performed in 26 allergy clinics of the GERAP network in 2017-8.

RESULTS

There were 765 patients with perioperative anaphylaxis included. Most cases were severe, with 428 (56%) reactions graded as 3 or 4 according to the Ring and Messmer classification. Skin test results were available for 676 patients, with a culprit agent identified in 471 cases (70%). Neuromuscular blocking agents were the main cause of perioperative anaphylaxis (n=281; 60%), followed by antibiotics (n=118; 25%) and patent blue dye (n=11; 2%). Cefazolin was the main antibiotic responsible for perioperative anaphylaxis (52% of antibiotic-related reactions). Suxamethonium and rocuronium were the main neuromuscular blocking agents responsible for perioperative anaphylaxis with 7.1 (6.1-8.4) and 5.6 (4.2-7.4) reactions per 100,000 vials sold, respectively, whereas cefazolin-related cases were estimated at 0.7 (0.5-0.9) reactions per 100,000 vials sold.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results confirm that most commonly identified triggering agents remain neuromuscular blocking agents. Reactions to antibiotics, particularly cefazolin, are becoming increasingly frequent. The origin of sensitisation to cefazolin is unknown, as no cross-sensitisation has been described, and it should be the subject of further study. Perioperative anaphylaxis should be followed over the years and understood given the changing triggers.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04654923).

Perioperative anaphylaxis: when the allergological work-up goes negative

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Perioperative anaphylaxis (POA) is rare but is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Patients are referred to the allergist to identify the mechanism of the reaction, the causative agent and make recommendations regarding subsequent anaesthesia. Despite a well conducted allergological evaluation, the causative agent is not found in 30-60% of these reactions, leaving patients without a well established diagnosis.

RECENT FINDINGS

Several mechanisms can induce POA. In addition to the well known IgE-mediated reactions, IgG-mediated reaction, MRGPR-X2-related reaction or nonspecific histamine release may be involved. These situations are not easily assessed by the allergological workup.

SUMMARY

When the allergological workup is negative, the situation should be reassessed with the team present at the time of the reaction to confirm the reality of the hypersensitivity reaction and to search for a possible differential diagnosis. If POA is confirmed, the allergological evaluation should be repeated, ensuring proper execution according to current guidelines and including the search for hidden allergens. Specific IgE assays or basophil activation tests may be of interest. In case of negative results, a closely monitored drug challenge test, in coordination with the anaesthesia teams, may be useful to avoid the exclusion of any drug injected during the reaction.

Neuromuscular blocking agent induced hypersensitivity reaction exploration: an update

Acute hypersensitivity reactions (AHRs) occurring in present-day anaesthesia can have severe, sometimes fatal, consequences and their incidence is increasing. The most frequent allergens responsible for AHR during anaesthesia are neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) (70% of the cases) followed by antibiotics (18%), patent blue dye and methylene blue dye (5%), and latex (5%). Following an AHR, strategies for subsequent anaesthetic procedures (especially the choice of an NMBA) may be difficult to formulate due to inconclusive diagnostic analysis in up to 30% of AHRs. Current diagnosis of AHR relies on the detection of mast cell degranulation products and drug-specific type E immunoglobulins (IgE) in order to document an IgE-mediated anaphylaxis (IgE endotype). Nonetheless, other IgE-independent pathways can be involved in AHR, but their detection is not currently available in standard situations. The different mechanisms (endotypes) involved in peri-operative AHR may contribute to the inconclusive diagnostic work-up and this generates uncertainty concerning the culpable drug and strategy for subsequent anaesthetic procedures. This review provides details on the IgE endotype; an update on non-IgE related endotypes and the novel diagnostic tools that could characterise them. This detailed update is intended to provide explicit clinical reasoning tools to the anaesthesiologist faced with an incomplete AHR diagnostic work-up and to facilitate the decision-making process regarding anaesthetic procedures following an AHR to NMBAs.

Diagnostic value of a medical algorithm for investigation of perioperative hypersensitivity reactions

BACKGROUND

Evaluation of perioperative hypersensitivity (POH) is challenging, and accurate screening tools are needed to optimize the diagnostic process. We aimed to assess and validate the diagnostic value of a published algorithm (using tryptase and clinical presentation) to identify appropriate individuals for further testing for IgE-mediated POH.

METHODS

We analysed the clinical presentation (tryptase elevation, cardiovascular, respiratory, skin involvement) of patients proceeding to testing for possible IgE-mediated POH at a single tertiary referral centre, relative to subsequent skin testing and specific IgE results. Clinical presentations by drug class were also determined.

RESULTS

In 293 consecutive patients, the use of a published algorithm based on one or more of; (i) defined increase in serum tryptase, (ii) involvement of at least two-organ systems, or (iii) presentation with new urticaria and/or angioedema; was highly sensitive [98.8% (CI95: 95.7-99.9%)] but less specific [34.6% (CI95: 25.7-44.4%)] in identifying patients testing positive on skin testing and/or specific IgE. Presentation with cardiovascular symptoms was also sensitive [89.8%(CI95: 84.2-94.0%)], while the combination of respiratory symptoms and increased tryptase was most specific [85.9%(CI95:76.6-92.5%)]. Respiratory involvement was more common in neuromuscular blocking agent allergy, while urticaria/angioedema was more common in antibiotic allergy.

CONCLUSION

The published algorithm (of tryptase rise, two-organ involvement or new urticaria/angioedema) is highly sensitive, and appropriate as a screening tool to identify patients suitable for testing for IgE-mediated POH.

Perioperative Anaphylaxis

Anesthesiologists routinely manage patients receiving drugs and agents, all of which have the potential for anaphylaxis, the life-threatening presentation of an allergic reaction. Clinicians must be ready to diagnose and manage the acute cardiopulmonary dysfunction that occurs.

Perioperative Anaphylaxis

Perioperative anaphylaxis is a potentially life-threatening and under-recognized event most commonly caused by antibiotics, neuromuscular blocking agents, dyes, latex, and disinfectants. This review provides updates in the epidemiology and pathogenesis of perioperative anaphylaxis, discusses culprit agents, and highlights the tenets of management including a comprehensive allergy evaluation.

Diagnostic performance of serial serum total tryptase measurement to differentiate positive from negative allergy testing among patients with suspected perioperative hypersensitivity

BACKGROUND

Serum total tryptase has been shown to increase during acute allergic reactions (acute tryptase, T_A ); however, few studies have investigated the values of T_A or a combination of T_A and baseline tryptase (T_B ) to discriminate positive from negative testing in perioperative hypersensitivity reaction (POH) allergy work up. The aim of this study was to determine the diagnostic performance of T_A in order to differentiate positive from negative allergy testing suspected POH and analyze the diagnostic performance of serial tryptase levels using several formulas.

METHODS

All patients from the University hospital of Montpellier and Strasbourg, France who presented with suspected POH and underwent complete drug allergy work-up between March 2011 and December 2019 with available T_A and T_B were included. Four formulas, including a change in T_A >11 (F1), or >2+1.2xT_B (F2), or >3+T_B (F3), or >120%T_B (F4), were applied.

RESULTS

One hundred and sixty-two patients were included, and 131 of them (80.8%) had grade III or IV reactions. Ninety patients had positive allergy testing. The optimal cut-off value of T_A to distinguish positive from negative allergy testing patients was 9.8 μg/L with an AUC of 0.817 (95%CI: 0.752-0.882, p<0.001). The 93% PPV threshold for T_A was 33 μg/L (95.8% specificity). Paired tryptase levels according to formulas F2 and F3 yielded the highest Youden index (0.54 and 0.53, respectively).

CONCLUSION

The optimal cut-off point for T_A for distinguishing positive from negative allergy testing suspected POH was 9.8 μg/L. T_A value of 33 μg/L was required to achieve >90% PPV.

Clinical reasoning in anaphylactic shock: addressing the challenges faced by anaesthesiologists in real time: A clinical review and management algorithms

Acute hypersensitivity reactions to drugs occur infrequently during anaesthesia and the peri-operative period. When clinical presentation includes the classical triad, erythema, cardiovascular abnormalities and increased airway pressure, the diagnosis is evident and the challenge is to prescribe a therapeutic regimen according to guidelines and to manage refractory signs in a timely manner. In many situations, however, the initial clinical signs are isolated, such as increased airway pressure or arterial hypotension. Rendering a differential diagnosis with causes and mechanisms other than acute hypersensitivity reactions (AHRs) is difficult, delaying treatment with possible worsening of the clinical signs, and even death, in previously healthy individuals. In these difficult diagnostic situations, clinical reasoning is mandatory, and guidelines do not explicitly explain the elements on which clinical reasoning can be built. In this article, based on clinical evidence whenever available, experimental data and pathophysiology, we propose algorithms that have been evaluated by experts. The goal of these algorithms is to provide explicit elements on which the differential diagnosis of AHRs can be made, accelerating the implementation of adequate therapy.

Prevention of Drug Hypersensitivity Reactions: Prescreening and Premedication

Drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHR) are heterogeneous in their pathomechanisms, clinical presentation, severity, and outcomes. Novel DHR mechanisms, phenotypes, and endotypes have been described. The key to prevention from further exposure to the culprit drugs involves correct identification of the putative drug through a combination of in vitro and/or in vivo tests, accurate drug allergy labeling and reporting, and electronic decision support systems within electronic medical records to prevent future accidental prescribing. Prescreening and premedication, the focus of this review, may be a useful adjunct to preventive measures in certain situations. After an index immediate drug hypersensitivity reaction, prescreening may be useful in perioperative anaphylaxis, and iodinated (ICM) and gadolinium-based contrast media (GCM) where the culprit and potential alternative agents are skin tested. In certain nonimmediate DHR, pharmacogenomic prescreening may be used before prescribing high-risk drugs (eg, carbamazepine and allopurinol) where specific human-leukocyte antigen genotypes are associated with severe cutaneous adverse reactions. Premedication with antihistamine and systemic corticosteroids is another therapeutic strategy to prevent infusion reactions for certain biologicals and chemotherapeutic agents, in cases of perioperative anaphylaxis, ICM and GCM DHR, and clonal mast cell disorders. Rapid drug desensitization may also be used to induce temporary tolerance in situations where there are limited alternative drugs.

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.

Approach to Perioperative Anaphylaxis in 2020: Updates in Diagnosis and Management

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The goal of the paper is to review the epidemiology, pathogenesis, diagnosis, and manifestations of perioperative anaphylaxis (POA). We seek to review the most common culprits of POA and different diagnostic modalities for evaluation.

RECENT FINDINGS

Specific IgE testing has a limited role in POA evaluation due to lack of widespread availability and low sensitivity. Basophil activation testing is complementary to skin tests and can assist NMBA sensitivity diagnosis in complex cases. In the past years, there has been an exponential increase in suspected teicoplanin allergic reactions in the European Union. Chlorhexidine is also being increasingly implicated as a culprit in POA. Multiple classes of perioperative medications cause POA. Diagnostic modalities available include skin testing with nonirritating concentrations, basophil activation tests, specific IgE, and drug provocation testing. An accurate record and critical analysis of perioperative events is more important than isolated test results. Future studies evaluating the pathophysiology of these reactions and other therapeutic strategies, such as targeting the MRGPRX2 receptor, are needed.

[Update on perioperative hypersensitivity reactions: joint document from the Brazilian Society of Anesthesiology (SBA) and Brazilian Association of Allergy and Immunology (ASBAI) - Part II: etiology and diagnosis]

This second joint document, written by experts from the Brazilian Association of Allergy and Immunology (ASBAI) and Brazilian Society of Anesthesiology (SBA) concerned with perioperative anaphylaxis, aims to review the pathophysiological reaction mechanisms, triggering agents (in adults and children), and the approach for diagnosis during and after an episode of anaphylaxis. As anaphylaxis assessment is extensive, the identification of medications, antiseptics and other substances used at each setting, the comprehensive data documentation, and the use of standardized nomenclature are key points for obtaining more consistent epidemiological information on perioperative anaphylaxis.

Update on perioperative hypersensitivity reactions: joint document from the Brazilian Society of Anesthesiology (SBA) and Brazilian Association of Allergy and Immunology (ASBAI) - Part II: etiology and diagnosis

This second joint document, written by experts from the Brazilian Association of Allergy and Immunology (ASBAI) and Brazilian Society of Anesthesiology (SBA) concerned with perioperative anaphylaxis, aims to review the pathophysiological reaction mechanisms, triggering agents (in adults and children), and the approach for diagnosis during and after an episode of anaphylaxis. As anaphylaxis assessment is extensive, the identification of medications, antiseptics and other substances used at each setting, the comprehensive data documentation, and the use of standardized nomenclature are key points for obtaining more consistent epidemiological information on perioperative anaphylaxis.

[Update on perioperative hypersensitivity reactions: joint document of the Brazilian Society of Anesthesiology (SBA) and Brazilian Association of Allergy and Immunology (ASBAI) - Part I: post-crisis guidelines and treatment]

Experts from the Brazilian Association of Allergy and Immunology (ASBAI) and the Brazilian Society of Anesthesiology (SBA) interested in the issue of perioperative anaphylaxis, and aiming to strengthen the collaboration between the two societies, combined efforts to study the topic and to prepare a joint document to guide specialists in both areas. The purpose of the present series of two articles was to report the most recent evidence based on the collaborative assessment between both societies. This first article will consider the updated definitions, treatment and guidelines after a perioperative crisis. The following article will discuss the major etiologic agents, how to proceed with the investigation, and the appropriate tests.

Skin Testing to Identify Safe Drugs for Patients with Rocuronium-Induced Anaphylaxis

Among patients who develop anaphylaxis during anesthesia, anaphylaxis caused by a neuromuscular blocking agent has the highest incidence. In patients who developed IgE-mediated anaphylaxis, and cross-reactivity among NMBAs is a concern in subsequent anesthetic procedures. We present a patient who developed rocuronium-induced anaphylaxis in whom the skin prick test (SPT) and intradermal test (IDT) could identify a safe drug to use in the subsequent anesthetic procedure. A 32-year-old female developed anaphylactic shock at the induction of general anesthesia. She recovered by administration of hydrocortisone and epinephrine. Skin tests including the SPT followed by the IDT revealed rocuronium as the drug that caused anaphylaxis and vecuronium as a safe drug to use for the subsequent general anesthesia. She safely underwent surgery with general anesthesia using vecuronium one month after the skin testing. There are not many reports on the effectiveness of the SPT followed by IDT in identifying the causative drug as well as a safe drug to use in the subsequent anesthetic procedure following anaphylaxis during anesthesia. The usefulness of the SPT should be re-evaluated.

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.

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.

Assessing cross-reactivity to neuromuscular blocking agents by skin and basophil activation tests in patients with neuromuscular blocking agent anaphylaxis

BACKGROUND

Following diagnosis of neuromuscular blocking agent (NMBA) anaphylaxis, identifying safe alternatives for subsequent anaesthesia is critical. A patient with anaphylaxis to one NMBA can also have an allergic reaction to other NMBAs (cross-reactivity). Whilst drug provocation testing is standard for identifying or excluding allergy, there is significant risk. In vitro, after an allergen activates basophils, basophils express surface activation markers that can be measured by basophil activation testing (BAT). We compared cross-reactivity between NMBAs assessed by BAT against that by skin testing.

METHODS

All patients attending an anaesthetic allergy clinic in Sydney, Australia between May 2017 and July 2018 diagnosed with NMBA anaphylaxis qualified for this study comparing intradermal skin tests and BAT with a panel of NMBAs (rocuronium, vecuronium, pancuronium, suxamethonium, cisatracurium).

RESULTS

Of the 61 patients participating, sensitisation on skin testing and on BAT completely matched in only nine patients (15%). Sensitisation was not in agreement for pancuronium, cisatracurium and rocuronium, but was in agreement for vecuronium and suxamethonium. Nine patients with negative skin tests subsequently tolerated cisatracurium, and one false positive on BAT to cisatracurium was detected.

CONCLUSIONS

The utility of BAT in identifying safe NMBAs for subsequent anaesthesia needs further evaluation. BAT detects a different cross-reactivity profile to skin tests. Negative skin testing and BAT might increase confidence in performing drug provocation testing, but this and follow-up of subsequent anaesthesia in our cohort is necessary to determine the clinical significance of BAT sensitisation.

Anaesthetic management of patients with pre-existing allergic conditions: a narrative review

This narrative review seeks to distinguish the clinical patterns of pre-existing allergic conditions from other confounding non-allergic clinical entities, and to identify the potential related risks and facilitate their perioperative management. Follow-up investigation should be performed after a perioperative immediate hypersensitivity to establish a diagnosis and provide advice for subsequent anaesthetics, the main risk factor for perioperative immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated anaphylaxis being a previous uninvestigated perioperative immediate hypersensitivity reaction. The concept of cross-reactivity between drugs used in the perioperative setting and food is often quoted, but usually not supported by evidence. There is no reason to avoid propofol in egg, soy, or peanut allergy. The allergenic determinants have been characterised for fish, shellfish, and povidone iodine, but remain unknown for iodinated contrast agents. Iodinated drugs may be used in seafood allergy. Evidence supporting the risk for protamine allergy in fish allergy and in neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin use is lacking. Conversely, cross-reactivity to gelatin-based colloid may occur in α-gal syndrome. Atopy and allergic asthma along with other non-allergic conditions, such as NSAID-exacerbated respiratory disease, chronic urticaria, mastocytosis, and hereditary or acquired angioedema, are not risk factors for IgE-mediated drug allergy, but there is a perioperative risk associated with the potential for exacerbation of the various conditions.

Comparative epidemiology of suspected perioperative hypersensitivity reactions

Suspected perioperative hypersensitivity reactions are rare but contribute significantly to the morbidity and mortality of surgical procedures. Recent publications have highlighted the differences between countries concerning the respective risk of different drugs, and changes in patterns of causal agents and the emergence of new allergens. This review summarises recent information on the epidemiology of perioperative hypersensitivity reactions, with specific consideration of differences between geographic areas for the most frequently involved offending agents.