Importance of mixture of minor determinants and benzylpenicilloyl poly-l-lysine skin testing in the diagnosis of β-lactam allergy

The role of major and minor determinants in penicillin allergy testing: Time to revisit an old friend?

Background

Skin testing is an important step in evaluation of penicillin allergic reactions. It includes testing to the following: amoxicillin, benzyl penicillin, and products generated in vivo after penicillin administration, the major determinant hapten penicilloyl-polylysine (PPL) and the minor determinant mixture (MDM). Although PPL and MDM are available as a commercial kit, their supply and cost remain problematic.

Objective

We aimed to evaluate the performance and utility of PPL and MDM in penicillin allergy testing.

Methods

A retrospective audit over a 5-year period was undertaken for those with penicillin testing in a tertiary immunology unit.

Results

In all, 214 patients were identified. Of those patients, 151 (70.6%) were female and the average age was 58 years. Unspecified penicillin was the most common index drug (n = 127 [59.3%]), followed by amoxicillin (n =3 [24.8%]) and amoxicillin-clavulanic acid (n = 21 [9.7%]). The result of skin testing was positive in 23 patients (10.7%); skin prick testing was positive in 10 patients (4.7%), and intradermal testing (IDT) was positive in 13 patients (6.1%), the majority of whom had identified amoxicillin or amoxicillin-clavulanic acid as the index drug (n = 22 [95.7%]). The result of testing to PPL and/or MDM was positive with IDT only (n=5 [23.8%]). PPL and MDM positivity coexisted with a positive reaction to amoxicillin IDT in 2 patients, 1 of whom passed an amoxicillin challenge. Additionally, 2 positive tests to PPL were present with a negative result for MDM; of these 2 positive results, 1 was positive to amoxicillin IDT. In only 1 case were the results of testing for MDM and PPL both positive, with negative results to all native β-lactams tested; the patient tolerated an amoxicillin challenge. Overall, the negative predictive value for both skin prick testing and IDT was 89.5%.

Conclusion

Benzyl penicillin and amoxicillin alone may be sufficient for in vivo testing in suspected individuals with penicillin allergy.

Detection of Serum-Specific IgE by Fluoro-Enzyme Immunoassay for Diagnosing Type I Hypersensitivity Reactions to Penicillins

Diagnosis of type I hypersensitivity reactions (IgE-mediated reactions) to penicillins is based on clinical history, skin tests (STs), and drug provocation tests (DPTs). Among in vitro complementary tests, the fluoro-enzyme immunoassay (FEIA) ImmunoCAP^® (Thermo-Fisher, Waltham, MA, USA) is the most widely used commercial method for detecting drug-specific IgE (sIgE). In this study, we aimed to analyze the utility of ImmunoCAP^® for detecting sIgE to penicillin G (PG) and amoxicillin (AX) in patients with confirmed penicillin allergy. The study includes 139 and 250 patients evaluated in Spain and Italy, respectively. All had experienced type I hypersensitivity reactions to penicillins confirmed by positive STs. Additionally, selective or cross-reactive reactions were confirmed by DPTs in a subgroup of patients for further analysis. Positive ImmunoCAP^® results were 39.6% for PG and/or AX in Spanish subjects and 52.4% in Italian subjects. When only PG or AX sIgE where analyzed, the percentages were 15.1% and 30.4%, respectively, in Spanish patients; and 38.9% and 46% in Italian ones. The analysis of positive STs showed a statistically significant higher percentage of positive STs to PG determinants in Italian patients. False-positive results to PG (16%) were detected in selective AX patients with confirmed PG tolerance. Low and variable sensitivity values observed in a well-defined population with confirmed allergy diagnosis, as well as false-positive results to PG, suggest that ImmunoCAP^® is a diagnostic tool with relevant limitations in the evaluation of subjects with type I hypersensitivity reactions to penicillins.

Direct Challenges for the Evaluation of Beta-Lactam Allergy: Evidence and Conditions for Not Performing Skin Testing

In the western world, up to 10% of the general population and more than 15% of hospitalized patients report penicillin allergy. After a comprehensive evaluation, more than 95% of patients who report a penicillin allergy can subsequently tolerate this antibiotic. Traditionally, the most widely accepted protocol to evaluate beta-lactam (BL) allergy consisted of skin testing (ST) followed by a drug provocation test (DPT) in ST-negative patients. DPT is the gold standard for proving or excluding BL allergy and is considered the final and definitive step in the evaluation. Recently, studies have been published that support the use of direct DPTs without preceding ST for both pediatric and adult patients who report a low-risk historical reaction to BLs. However, these studies use various risk-stratification criteria to determine eligibility for a direct DPT. A standardized protocol for DPT is also lacking. In this review, we assess the current literature and evidence for performing direct DPT in the pediatric and adult populations. On the basis of this evidence, we also present risk-based algorithms for the evaluation of BL allergy in pediatric and adult populations based on a description of the historical reaction.

Neo-antigens for the serological diagnosis of IgE-mediated drug allergic reactions to antibiotics cephalosporin, carbapenem and monobactam

New antigens deriving from -lloyl and -llanyl, major and minor determinants, respectively, were produced for β-lactam antibiotics cefuroxime, cefotaxime, ceftriaxone, meropenem and aztreonam. Twenty β-lactam antigens were produced using human serum albumin and histone H1 as carrier proteins. Antigens were tested by multiplex in vitro immunoassays and evaluated based on the detection of specific IgG and IgE in the serum samples. Both major and minor determinants were appropriate antigens for detecting specific anti-β-lactam IgG in immunised rabbit sera. In a cohort of 37 allergic patients, we observed that only the minor determinants (-llanyl antigens) were suitable for determining specific anti-β-lactam IgE antibodies with high sensitivity (< 0.01 IU/mL; 24 ng/L) and specificity (100%). These findings reveal that not only the haptenisation of β-lactam antibiotics renders improved molecular recognition events when the 4-member β-lactam ring remains unmodified, but also may contribute to develop promising minor antigens suitable for detecting specific IgE-mediated allergic reactions. This will facilitate the development of sensitive and selective multiplexed in vitro tests for drug-allergy diagnoses to antibiotics cephalosporin, carbapenem and monobactam.

Usefulness of an Artificial Neural Network in the Prediction of β-Lactam Allergy

BACKGROUND

An accurate diagnosis of β-lactam (BL) allergy improves the use of antibiotics, increases patients' safety, and reduces costs to health systems. Nevertheless, it requires skin and drug provocation tests, which are time-consuming and put the patient at risk. Furthermore, allergy testing is not available in circumstances such as the urgent need for antibiotic therapy.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the usefulness of an artificial neural network (ANN) in the prediction of hypersensitivity to BLs, and compare it with logistic regression (LR) analysis.

METHODS

In a single-center study, 656 patients evaluated for BL allergy between 1994 and 2000 were retrospectively analyzed, and the data were used to construct an ANN. The ANN predictive capabilities were compared with LR and then prospectively evaluated in 615 patients who underwent BL evaluation between 2011 and 2017.

RESULTS

A total of 1271 patients were evaluated. All patients had a definite diagnosis as allergic or nonallergic to BL. The prospective sample showed a lower percentage of patients with allergy than the retrospective sample (20.7% vs 25.8%; P = .018). In the retrospective and prospective series, the ANN reached a sensitivity of 89.5% and 81.1%, a specificity of 86.1% and 97.9%, a positive predictive value of 82.1% and 91.1%, and a negative predictive value of 92.1% and 95.2%, respectively. The ANN's performance was far superior to that of the LR, whose best performance reached a sensitivity of 31.9% and a specificity of 98.8%.

CONCLUSIONS

This ANN demonstrated a superior performance than the LR in predicting BL hypersensitivity without misdiagnosing severe allergic reactions. The ANN could be a helpful tool to classify the reaction risk, particularly in the identification of low-risk patients, in which an open challenge could be done to delabel patients.

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.

Antimicrobial Desensitization: A Review of Published Protocols

Antimicrobial desensitization represents a last-line option for patients with no alternative therapies, where the benefits of this intensive process must outweigh the potential harm from drug exposure. The goal of antimicrobial desensitization procedures is to establish a temporary state of tolerance to drugs that may otherwise cause hypersensitivity reactions. While no universal antimicrobial desensitization protocols exist, this review critically analyzes previously published desensitization protocols. The purpose of this review is to provide a greater insight for clinicians and institutions to ensure desensitization procedures are efficacious while minimizing potential for patient harm. With an increasing rate of antimicrobial resistance and the critical need to preserve antimicrobial agents, desensitization may represent another option in our antimicrobial stewardship toolkit.

Identifying Low-Risk Beta-Lactam Allergy Patients in a UK Tertiary Centre

BACKGROUND

There are marked geographical as well as temporal differences in patient sensitization profiles to β-lactams (BL).

OBJECTIVE

To determine the utility of skin test reagents and identify a cohort of patients where skin testing can be safely omitted in a cohort of patients referred to a UK tertiary referral center.

METHODS

A retrospective study of the clinical characteristics of 1092 patients referred for BL allergy testing was analyzed using multivariate regression analysis. The effectiveness of skin test reagents was also evaluated.

RESULTS

Multivariate logistic regression identified that a history of anaphylaxis (odds ratio [OR] 10.98, P = .001) and the patients' recall of the index drug (apart from ampicillin and meropenem, OR 3.51-12.43, P < .05) were independent predictors of type I BL allergic status and a time of less than 1 year elapsed since index reaction significantly increasing the odds of a patient with a history of anaphylaxis, having a type I BL allergy (OR 38.66, P = .003). An absence of anaphylactic severity, unknown name of the index drug and a reaction occurring more than 1 year before testing, has a negative predictive value (NPV) of 98.4%, which was similar to the NPV of skin testing of 98.9% for type I BL allergy. The NPV of skin testing with benzylpenicillin + amoxicillin ± index BL was similar with (98.9%) or without (98.1%) the use of benzylpenicillin polylysine and minor determinant for type I BL allergy.

CONCLUSION

We identified a "low risk" cohort of patients where the history is of similar reliability to skin testing in predicting nonallergic status for BL allergy.

Penicillin Allergy Evaluation: A Prospective, Multicenter, Open-Label Evaluation of a Comprehensive Penicillin Skin Test Kit

BACKGROUND

Ten percent of the population claims an allergy to penicillin, but 90% of these individuals are not allergic. Patients labeled as penicillin-allergic have higher medical costs, longer hospital stays, are more likely to be treated with broad-spectrum antibiotics, and develop drug-resistant bacterial infections. Most penicillin skin test reagents are not approved by the Food and drug Administration or readily available to evaluate patients labeled penicillin-allergic.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the negative predictive value (NPV) of the Penicillin Skin Test Kit containing the major allergenic determinant (penicilloyl polylysine), a minor determinant mixture (penicillin G, penicilloate, penilloate), and amoxicillin, produced according to Food and Drug Administration standards.

METHODS

This was a prospective, multicenter, open-label investigation of penicillin skin testing using the Penicillin Skin Test Kit. Skin test-negative subjects were challenged with 250 mg amoxicillin, whereas skin test-positive patients were not challenged. The primary end point was NPV of the Penicillin Skin Test Kit, defined as the percentage of subjects with negative skin test results who did not experience an IgE-dependent reaction within 72 hours of amoxicillin challenge.

RESULTS

In total, 455 patients with a history of penicillin allergy underwent skin testing and 63 (13.8%) had 1 or more positive test results; 65% of the positive test results were to the minor determinant mixture and/or amoxicillin alone. In the per protocol group of 373 skin test-negative subjects, 8 developed potential IgE-dependent reactions following oral amoxicillin challenge, translating to an NPV of 97.9% (95% CI, 95.8-99.1; P < .0001). All but 1 of the reactions was mild or moderate, and most subjects who required treatment received only antihistamines.

CONCLUSIONS

The Penicillin Skin Test Kit, containing all relevant penicillin allergenic determinants, demonstrated very high NPV. Removal of a penicillin allergy label in a large majority of currently mislabeled patients has substantial personal and public health implications.

Management of a surgical patient with a label of penicillin allergy: narrative review and consensus recommendations

Unsubstantiated penicillin-allergy labels are common in surgical patients, and can lead to significant harm through avoidance of best first-line prophylaxis of surgical site infections and increased infection with resistant bacterial strains. Up to 98% of penicillin-allergy labels are incorrect when tested. Because of the scarcity of trained allergists in all healthcare systems, only a minority of surgical patients have the opportunity to undergo testing and de-labelling before surgery. Testing pathways can be modified and shortened in selected patients. A variety of healthcare professionals can, with appropriate training and in collaboration with allergists, provide testing for selected patients. We review how patients might be assessed, the appropriate testing strategies that can be used, and the minimum standards of safe testing.

Penicillin and Beta-Lactam Hypersensitivity

Ten percent of patients report penicillin allergy, but more than 90% of these individuals can tolerate penicillins. Skin testing remains the optimal method for evaluation of possible IgE-mediated penicillin allergy and is recommended by professional societies, as the harms for alternative antibiotics include antimicrobial resistance, prolonged hospitalizations, readmissions, and increased costs. Removal of penicillin allergy leads to decreased utilization of broad-spectrum antibiotics, such as fluoroquinolones and vancomycin. There is minimal allergic cross-reactivity between penicillins and cephalosporins. IgE-mediated allergy to cephalosporins is usually side-chain specific and may warrant graded challenge with cephalosporins containing dissimilar R1 or R2 group side chains.

Utility of minor determinants for skin testing in inpatient penicillin allergy evaluation

BACKGROUND

Most patients with a history of penicillin allergy can tolerate penicillin. Skin testing can identify tolerant patients, but not all known allergenic determinants are commercially available. Protocols exist that use only available reagents, but the sensitivity and safety of these protocols, particularly for hospitalized patients, are controversial.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the number of hospitalized patients referred for penicillin skin testing who showed unique positivity to the minor determinants penicilloate and penilloate.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was conducted of all inpatients who underwent penicillin skin testing at 1 institution. Patients were referred by their treating physician. All patients underwent skin prick testing to benzylpenicilloyl polylysine (major determinant), penicillin G, penicilloate, penilloate (minor determinants), amoxicillin, and positive and negative controls. If the result was negative, then intradermal testing was done with the same penicillin determinants and the negative control. A 4-mm wheal with flare was considered a positive reaction.

RESULTS

Inpatient penicillin skin testing was done in 528 subjects. Any positive test reaction was found in 107 subjects (20%). Three subjects (3%) reacted to penilloate only, 25 (23%) reacted to penicilloate only, 2 (2%) reacted to penicillin G only, and 8 (8%) reacted to amoxicillin only. Sixty-eight subjects (64%) reacted to a compound other than the major determinant.

CONCLUSION

This study found a high rate of exclusively positive skin test reactions to the minor determinants penicilloate and penilloate. Because patients with positive test reactions are at increased risk of reaction to drug challenge, these data support the use of these reagents for penicillin skin testing in hospitalized patients.

Evolution of diagnostic approaches in betalactam hypersensitivity

INTRODUCTION

Betalactams are the most widely used drugs against infections and the primary cause of antibiotic hypersensitivity reactions. Reaction patterns for different betalactams have been changing in accordance with consumption trends, and vary among countries. As a consequence, in vivo and in vitro tests have had to change with to keep up with new tendencies. Areas covered: This review is focused on advances in betalactam hypersensitivity diagnosis. Changes in in vivo methods have been limited to the inclusion of new haptens. In contrast, major progress has been achieved for in vitro tests since the 1960s, from the first description of immunoassays, the basophil activation test and the lymphocyte transformation test, to the more sophisticated assays developed in last years. Expert commentary: Issues with diagnosis are related to test sensitivity. In vivo tests show higher sensitivity, however they can be risky, especially in severe and life-threatening reactions. Therefore, we believe that in vitro tests should be the preferred method. Current efforts are under way to enhance their sensitivity. Only multidisciplinary approaches involving immunology, proteomics, nanotechnology and chemistry can help us to fully understand conjugate structures and mechanisms involved in hypersensitivity reactions to betalactams, and consequently lead to advances in in vitro methods.

Performance in real life of the European Network on Drug Allergy algorithm in immediate reactions to beta-lactam antibiotics

European Network on Drug Allergy (ENDA) has proposed an algorithm for diagnosing immediate beta-lactam (BL) allergy. We evaluated its performance in real life. During 1994-2014, 1779 patients with suspected immediate reactions to BL were evaluated following ENDA's short diagnostic algorithm. Five hundred and nine patients (28.6%) were diagnosed of BL hypersensitivity. Of them, 457 (25.7%) were at first evaluation [403 by skin tests (ST), 12 by positive IgE and 42 by controlled provocation tests (CPT)]. At second evaluation (SE), 52 additional patients (10.2% of allergic patients) were diagnosed, [50 (2.8%) by ST and 2 (0.1%) by CPT]. Time between reaction and study was significantly longer in patients diagnosed at SE (median 5 vs 42 months; IQR 34 vs 170; P < 0.0001). Anaphylaxis was significantly associated with a diagnosis at SE. European Network on Drug Allergy/EAACI protocol was appropriate and safe when evaluating BL immediate reactions. Re-evaluation should be performed, particularly when anaphylaxis and long interval to diagnosis are present.

A retrospective comparison of false negative skin test rates in penicillin allergy, using pencilloyl-poly-lysine and minor determinants or Penicillin G, followed by open challenge

Background

A history of penicillin allergy in patients is common, but only 10–15 % are truly allergic. While the gold standard for diagnosing penicillin allergy is challenge, it is not recommended that this be done without first carrying out diagnostic skin testing. This is carried out with the major determinant benzylpenicilloyl (PPL) and the minor determinant mixture (MDM), consisting of penilloate, penicilloate and Penicillin G. However, since availability of the MDM is limited, Penicillin G alone has been used.

Methods

A retrospective chart review was carried out on patients tested for penicillin allergy in the Clinical Immunology and Allergy Clinic at the Health Sciences Centre, Winnipeg, Canada between 2005 and 2013. A total of 521 patients charts were reviewed, of whom 240 had skin testing, ImmunoCap^® for IgE to Penicillin G and V and had oral challenges with penicillin, amoxicillin or cloxacillin.

Results

17/240 (7.5 %) were skin test positive, 8 to PPL, 4 to MDM and 5 to Penicillin G. One was also positive on ImmunoCap^® testing. Three patients had negative skin tests but weakly positive ImmunoCap^®. 222 patients with negative skin tests and serological tests were challenged. Of these, 12 patients reacted to challenge. Three of the challenges were equivocal. Of the nine patients with definite positive challenges, three were tested with Penicillin G and six with MDM. Therefore the false negative rates for testing were 2.3 % with PPL and Penicillin G and 6.97 % for PPL and MDM. The difference was not significant (p = 0.0856).

Conclusions

In this group of patients with a history of penicillin allergy tested with the major determinant of benzyl penicillin and either MDM or Penicillin G, there was no difference in the rate of false negative testing, based on oral penicillin challenges. Therefore, Penicillin G can be safely used as an alternative to MDM in diagnosing penicillin allergy.

Management of allergy to penicillins and other beta-lactams

The Standards of Care Committee of the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology (BSACI) and an expert panel have prepared this guidance for the management of immediate and non-immediate allergic reactions to penicillins and other beta-lactams. The guideline is intended for UK specialists in both adult and paediatric allergy and for other clinicians practising allergy in secondary and tertiary care. The recommendations are evidence based, but where evidence is lacking, the panel reached consensus. During the development of the guideline, all BSACI members were consulted using a Web-based process and all comments carefully considered. Included in the guideline are epidemiology of allergic reactions to beta-lactams, molecular structure, formulations available in the UK and a description of known beta-lactam antigenic determinants. Sections on the value and limitations of clinical history, skin testing and laboratory investigations for both penicillins and cephalosporins are included. Cross-reactivity between penicillins and cephalosporins is discussed in detail. Recommendations on oral provocation and desensitization procedures have been made. Guidance for beta-lactam allergy in children is given in a separate section. An algorithm to help the clinician in the diagnosis of patients with a history of penicillin allergy has also been included.

Evaluation of antibiotic allergy: the role of skin tests and drug challenges

Antibiotic allergies are frequently reported in both adult and pediatric populations. While a detailed drug history is essential in the evaluation of antibiotic allergy, the history is typically insufficient to determine the presence of a drug allergy. The most readily available diagnostic testing for evaluating antibiotic allergies are drug skin testing and drug challenges. This review will focus on updates in the evaluation of antibiotic allergy utilizing immediate skin tests, delayed intradermal testing, drug patch tests, and drug challenges for both adults and children with histories of antibiotic allergies.

Antibiotic allergy

Although allergy to β-lactam and non-β-lactam antibiotics is commonly claimed, true allergy to these drugs is often absent. Reactions to antibiotics can be classified according to the interval between the last administration of the drug and the onset of symptoms, but except for immediate reactions occurring within an hour of exposure, which are almost always either IgE-mediated or due to direct stimulation of mast cells, reactions occurring later than 1 hour probably have multiple mechanisms, including being IgE-mediated or involving cell-mediated reactions. The latter are likely caused by drug-specific T lymphocytes. The diagnosis of antibiotic allergy can be difficult.

Skin testing only with penicillin G in children with a history of penicillin allergy

BACKGROUND

The absence of commercially available penicilloyl-polylysine (PPL) for most of the last decade severely hampered the practice of penicillin allergy evaluation because skin testing without PPL is reported to have a poor negative predictive value (NPV).

OBJECTIVE

To determine the safety and NPV of skin testing without PPL using only penicillin G followed by a 3-dose graded challenge to the incriminated penicillin in children with a history of penicillin allergy.

METHODS

Patients evaluated for a history of penicillin allergy at the CHU Sainte-Justine Allergy Clinic between December 2006 and December 2009 were skin tested only with penicillin G and underwent a 3-dose graded challenge to the culprit penicillin if the skin test result was negative.

RESULTS

Among 563 patients skin tested to penicillin G, 185 (33%) had a positive skin test result. These patients had a shorter interval between the initial reaction and skin testing compared with patients with a negative skin test result (P = .03). A total of 375 of 378 patients (99%) with a negative skin test result were challenged and 18 (4.8%) reacted, translating into a NPV of 95.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 92.5%-97.1%). Three of 17 patients with a history of anaphylaxis and a negative skin test result reacted to challenge (NPV, 82.4%; 95% CI, 59.0-93.8%). All challenge reactions were mild and resolved promptly with treatment.

CONCLUSION

Among children with a history of penicillin allergy, skin testing only with penicillin G followed by a 3-dose graded challenge to the incriminated penicillin is safe and yields a good NPV. This approach could be useful when PPL is unavailable.

Penicillin allergy evaluation: experience from a drug allergy clinic in an Arabian Gulf Country, Kuwait

BACKGROUND

Hypersensitivity to penicillin has been studied worldwide, but data regarding patterns of sensitization in Arabian Gulf countries are scarce.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the patterns of penicillin hypersensitivity during a 6-year study in Kuwait in terms of demographics, type of the culprit drug, in vivo and in vitro allergy testing.

METHODS

One hundred and twenty-four patients referred to the drug allergy clinic for penicillin allergy were fully evaluated by skin prick and intradermal testing. Drug provocation test was done on patients with negative results.

RESULTS

A total of 124 patients were evaluated for penicillin allergy. Mean age was 37.8 (standard deviation, 12.7) years, range from 8 to 74 years. Thirty-nine male (31.5%) and 85 female patients (68.5%) were included. Diagnosis of penicillin allergy was confirmed in 46 patients (37.1%). Among the 44 confirmed allergic patients by skin evaluation we had 15 (34.1%) positive skin prick test, and 29 (65.9%) positive intradermal testing. Among patients with positive skin testing, 47.7% were positive to major determinant benzylpenicilloyl poly-L-lysine, 20.4% to minor determinant mixture, 50.0% to penicillin G and 40.9% to ampicillin; 13.6% of patients were positive to amoxicillin by skin prick test. One patient had a positive radioallergosorbent test and one had a positive challenge test.

CONCLUSION

Penicillin allergy is a common problem with an incidence of about one third in our study subjects.

A world allergy organization international survey on diagnostic procedures and therapies in drug allergy/hypersensitivity

OBJECTIVE

To study the diagnostic and treatment modalities used in drug allergy/hypersensitivity among members of the World Allergy Organization (WAO).

METHODS

A questionnaire comprising 39 questions was circulated electronically to member societies, associate member societies, and regional and affiliate organizations of WAO between June 29, 2009, and August 9, 2009.

RESULTS

Eighty-two responses were received. Skin testing was used by 74.7%, with only 71.4% having access to penicillin skin test reagents. In vitro-specific IgE tests were used by 67.4%, and basophil activation test was used by 54.4%. Lymphocyte transformation tests were used by 36.8% and patch tests by 54.7%. Drug provocation tests were used by 68.4%, the most common indication being to exclude hypersensitivity where history/symptoms were not suggestive of drug hypersensitivity/allergy (76.9%). Rapid desensitization for chemotherapy, antibiotics, or biologic agents was used by 69.6%. Systemic corticosteroid was used in the treatment of Stevens-Johnson syndrome by 72.3%, and high-dose intravenous immunoglobulins in toxic epidermal necrolysis by 50.8%. Human leukocyte antigen screening before prescription of abacavir was used by 92.9% and before prescription of carbamazepine by 21.4%.

CONCLUSIONS

Results of this survey form a useful framework for developing educational and training needs and for improving access to drug allergy diagnostic and treatment modalities across WAO member societies.

Drug provocation tests in hypersensitivity drug reactions

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Drug provocation test (DPT) is necessary to diagnose most drug hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) due to decreased sensitivity of skin testing even when combined with in-vitro tests in immunonologic drug HSR and limited availability of these tests in nonimmunologic reaction. We review the principles and controversial issues of DPT, and recent studies using DPT as a diagnostic tool.

RECENT FINDINGS

DPT is recommended in the diagnosis of HSR to β-lactams, as well as other drug classes [such as acetylsalicylic acid-NSAIDs (ASA-NSAIDs), non-β-lactams antibiotics, heparin, glucocorticoids, and local anesthetic agents]. In view of the decreased sensitivity of skin testing, limited accessibility to new benzylpenicillin polylysine (PPL)/mixture of minor determinant (MDM) test reagents and limited availability of validated sensitive in-vitro tests, individuals who require DPT to β-lactams are increasing. The negative predictive value of allergologic work-up is very high, ranging from 94 to 98% for β-lactams and those reactions after negative tests are mostly nonimmediate and mild. Finally, DPT is recommended to ascertain tolerability of alternative compound when evaluating cross-reactivity among different classes of β-lactams, NSAIDs and glucocorticoids, and possibly iodinated contrast media.

SUMMARY

DPT is often needed when evaluating patients with suspected drug HSR. More studies regarding standardization of the various protocols are needed in order to increase its acceptance and adoption as a standard practice in the diagnostic algorithm for drug HSR.

Allergy to betalactam antibiotics in children: results of a 20-year study based on clinical history, skin and challenge tests

Studies based on skin and challenge tests have shown that 12-60% of children with suspected betalactam hypersensitivity were allergic to betalactams. Responses in skin and challenge tests were studied in 1865 children with suspected betalactam allergy (i) to confirm or rule out the suspected diagnosis; (ii) to evaluate diagnostic value of immediate and non-immediate responses in skin and challenge tests; (iii) to determine frequency of betalactam allergy in those children, and (iv) to determine potential risk factors for betalactam allergy. The work-up was completed in 1431 children, of whom 227 (15.9%) were diagnosed allergic to betalactams. Betalactam hypersensitivity was diagnosed in 50 of the 162 (30.9%) children reporting immediate reactions and in 177 of the 1087 (16.7%) children reporting non-immediate reactions (p<0.001). The likelihood of betalactam hypersensitivity was also significantly higher in children reporting anaphylaxis, serum sickness-like reactions, and (potentially) severe skin reactions such as acute generalized exanthematic pustulosis, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, and drug reaction with systemic symptoms than in other children (p<0.001). Skin tests diagnosed 86% of immediate and 31.6% of non-immediate sensitizations. Cross-reactivity and/or cosensitization among betalactams was diagnosed in 76% and 14.7% of the children with immediate and non-immediate hypersensitivity, respectively. The number of children diagnosed allergic to betalactams decreased with time between the reaction and the work-up, probably because the majority of children with severe and worrying reactions were referred for allergological work-up more promptly than the other children. Sex, age, and atopy were not risk factors for betalactam hypersensitivity. In conclusion, we confirm in numerous children that (i) only a few children with suspected betalactam hypersensitivity are allergic to betalactams; (ii) the likelihood of betalactam allergy increases with earliness and/or severity of the reactions; (iii) although non-immediate-reading skin tests (intradermal and patch tests) may diagnose non-immediate sensitizations in children with non-immediate reactions to betalactams (maculopapular rashes and potentially severe skin reactions especially), the diagnostic value of non-immediate-reading skin tests is far lower than the diagnostic value of immediate-reading skin tests, most non-immediate sensitizations to betalactams being diagnosed by means of challenge tests; (iv) cross-reactivity and/or cosensitizations among betalactams are much more frequent in children reporting immediate and/or anaphylactic reactions than in the other children; (v) age, sex and personal atopy are not significant risk factors for betalactam hypersensitivity; and (vi) the number of children with diagnosed allergy to betalactams (of the immediate-type hypersensitivity especially) decreases with time between the reaction and allergological work-up. Finally, based on our experience, we also propose a practical diagnostic approach in children with suspected betalactam hypersensitivity.

Drug allergy: an updated practice parameter

Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) result in major health problems in the United States in both the inpatient and outpatient setting. ADRs are broadly categorized into predictable (type A and unpredictable (type B) reactions. Predictable reactions are usually dose dependent, are related to the known pharmacologic actions of the drug, and occur in otherwise healthy individuals, They are estimated to comprise approximately 80% of all ADRs. Unpredictable are generally dose independent, are unrelated to the pharmacologic actions of the drug, and occur only in susceptible individuals. Unpredictable reactions are subdivided into drug intolerance, drug idiosyncrasy, drug allergy, and pseudoallergic reactions. Both type A and B reactions may be influenced by genetic predisposition of the patient

Identification of new minor metabolites of penicillin G in human serum by multiple-stage tandem mass spectrometry

Liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry (LC/MS) and liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) were applied to characterize drug metabolites. Although these two methods have overcome the identification and structural characterization of metabolites analysis, they remain time-consuming processes. In this study, a novel multiple-stage tandem mass spectrometric method (MS(n) ) was evaluated for identification and characterization of new minor metabolism profiling of penicillin G, one of the β-lactam antibiotics, in human serum. Seven minor metabolites including five phase I metabolites and two phase II metabolites of penicillin G were identified by using data-dependent LC/MS(n) screening in one chromatographic run. The accuracy masses of seven identified metabolites of penicillin G were also confirmed by mass spectral calibration software (MassWorks™). The proposed data-dependent LC/MS(n) method is a powerful tool to provide large amounts of the necessary structural information to characterize minor metabolite in metabolism profiling.

The current practice of skin testing for antibiotics in Korean hospitals

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Antibiotic skin testing is a useful procedure for identifying patients with IgE-mediated hypersensitivity to antibiotics. The procedures, however, have not been standardized, and the testing is performed with diverse protocols in Korean hospitals wards. Thus, we examined the current practice of antibiotic skin testing in Korea.

METHODS

We sent questionnaires to 12 allergists working in secondary or tertiary referral hospitals and collected them by e-mail or fax. The questionnaire included items such as the types and concentrations of the tested antibiotics, the methods of antibiotic skin testing, and the interpretation of the results.

RESULTS

All hospitals responded to the questionnaire. The antibiotic skin testing protocols were variable, inconsistent, and differed with regard to the type and concentrations of antibiotics, the volume injected, and the interpretation of the results. Moreover, the protocols differed from the commonly recommended procedures in the medical literature.

CONCLUSIONS

Standardized guidelines for antibiotic skin testing are needed for the safe and effective use of antibiotics in Korea.

Role of minor determinants of amoxicillin in the diagnosis of immediate allergic reactions to amoxicillin

BACKGROUND

Skin testing of subjects with immediate hypersensitivity to amoxicillin is performed using major and minor determinants of benzylpenicillin plus amoxicillin. However, sensitivity is not optimal, and other determinants need to be considered. We assessed the sensitivity of stable, well-characterized minor determinants of amoxicillin in subjects with immediate allergic reactions to amoxicillin to improve skin test sensitivity.

METHODS

Amoxicillin, amoxicilloic acid, and diketopiperazine were prepared and characterized by reverse-phase HPLC, tested in vivo by skin testing and in vitro by basophil activation test and RAST inhibition assay.

RESULTS

Patients with immediate hypersensitivity to amoxicillin were selected: Group A (n = 32), skin test positive just to amoxicillin; Group B (n = 19), skin test positive to benzylpenicillin determinants; Group C (n = 10), skin test negative and amoxicillin drug provocation test positive. In Group A, 27 subjects (81.8%) were skin test positive to amoxicillin, ten (30.3%) to amoxicilloic acid, two (6.1%) to diketopiperacine, and six (18.2%) negative. In Group B, nine (50%) were positive to amoxicillin, eight (42.1%) to amoxicilloic acid, none to diketopiperacine, and nine (50%) negative. In Group C, skin tests were negative. BAT was positive to amoxicillin in 26 patients (50.9%), to amoxicilloic acid in 15 (29.1%), and diketopiperazine in four (7.8%). RAST inhibition studies showed > 50% inhibition in all sera, with the highest concentration of amoxicillin and amoxicilloic acid.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of minor determinants of amoxicillin, amoxicilloic acid, and diketopiperazine seems to be of no greater value than the use of amoxicillin alone. Further efforts are needed to find new structures to improve sensitivity in the diagnosis of immediate hypersensitivity to betalactams.

Update on the management of antibiotic allergy

Drug allergy to antibiotics may occur in the form of immediate or non-immediate (delayed) hypersensitivity reactions. Immediate reactions are usually IgE-mediated whereas non-immediate hypersensitivity reactions are usually non-IgE or T-cell mediated. The clinical manifestations of antibiotic allergy may be cutaneous, organ-specific (e.g., blood dyscracias, hepatitis, interstitial nephritis), systemic (e.g., anaphylaxis, drug induced hypersensitivity syndrome) or various combinations of these. Severe cutaneous adverse reactions manifesting as Stevens Johnson syndrome or toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) may be potentially life-threatening. The management of antibiotic allergy begins with the identification of the putative antibiotic from a detailed and accurate drug history, complemented by validated in-vivo and in-vitro allergological tests. This will facilitate avoidance of the putative antibiotic through patient education, use of drug alert cards, and electronic medical records with in-built drug allergy/adverse drug reaction prescription and dispensing checks. Knowledge of the evidence for specific antibiotic cross-reactivities is also important in patient education. Apart from withdrawal of the putative antibiotic, immunomodulatory agents like high-dose intravenous immunoglobulins may have a role in TEN. Drug desensitization where the benefits outweigh the risks, and where no alternative antibiotics can be used for various reasons, may be considered in certain situations. Allergological issues pertaining to electronic drug allergy alerts, computerized physician prescriptions and decision support systems, and antibiotic de-escalation in antimicrobial stewardship programmes are also discussed.

Benzylpenicillin skin testing is still important in diagnosing immediate hypersensitivity reactions to penicillins

BACKGROUND

The fact that both Hollister-Stier and Allergopharma ceased the production of penicilloyl-polylysine (PPL) and minor determinant mixture (MDM) in 2004 is severely hampering the diagnosis of beta-lactam hypersensitivity and may produce negative consequences.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the contribution of skin testing with benzylpenicillin to the diagnosis of immunoglobulin E-mediated hypersensitivity to penicillins, in order to determine how much such testing could compensate for PPL and MDM unavailability.

METHODS

We selected patients with histories of immediate reactions to penicillins and positive results to skin tests for one or more penicillin reagents (PPL, MDM, or benzylpenicillin), one or more semi-synthetic penicillins (ampicillin, amoxicillin, or piperacillin), or both.

RESULTS

A total of 300 patients were selected, 105 in the French center and 195 in the Italian centers. Amoxicillin and ampicillin were the main responsible drugs. The most common clinical manifestation was anaphylaxis. The reagents most frequently positive to skin tests were amoxicillin (188, 62.7%), ampicillin (151, 50.3%), and benzylpenicillin (111, 37.0%). Among the 300 subjects, 113 (37.7%) were positive only to semi-synthetic penicillins, 109 (36.3%) to both semi-synthetic penicillins and the classic penicillin reagents, and 78 (26.0%) only to the latter. In the last group, 64 (21.3% of the 300 subjects) were positive only to PPL and/or MDM and 14 (4.7%) to benzylpenicillin, of whom 8 (2.7%) were positive only to the latter.

CONCLUSIONS

Skin testing with benzylpenicillin can partially compensate for PPL and MDM unavailability. Moreover, it can slightly increase the allergologic workup's sensitivity and therefore reduce the number of potentially dangerous challenges.

[Allergy to betalactams: myth and realities]

Allergic reactions to penicillins have been reported since the 1950s, shortly after their introduction as therapeutic agents. An increasing number of reported anaphylactic reactions and other adverse effects proved this to be a serious public health problem. Fifty years later, betalactam-induced hypersensitivity is the most frequent cause of drug reaction and has been the source of a great number of publications. Clinically, betalactam-induced allergic reactions may be immediate or non-immediate according to the time interval between drug intake and the occurrence of symptoms. The diagnosis of betalactam hypersensitivity is based on skin tests methods, in vitro tests and drug provocation test. There are three classical methods for skin testing: prick, intradermal, and patch. These tests are still the most sensitive techniques. In vitro tests, mainly based on the quantification of IgE antibodies to betalactams by immunoassay (Fluorescent Enzyme Immunoassay [FEIA]), may sometimes yield useful complementary information. Drug provocation tests must be performed with the required caution and the adequate indication. Algorithms are available for both immediate and non-immediate reactions to provide a practical approach for patient evaluation. They are based on the following data: clinical history, skin tests, FEIA, and drug provocation tests. Finally, cross reactivity between betalactams has been reported, especially between penicillins and cephalosporins. Their frequency was long over-estimated, but recent evidence, indicates that cross reactivity between betalactams has become rare. Administration of cephalosporins in patients with a history of penicillin allergy requires performing skin testing with penicillin, the probably allergenic drug, and the cephalosporin to be prescribed.

Experience with a new commercial skin testing kit to identify IgE-mediated penicillin allergy

Many patients who describe a history of allergy to penicillin do not prove to be allergic and can be treated safely with penicillin. After a period of 2 years where testing of penicillin allergy was not possible, a new commercial kit has recently become available. We report our initial experience with use of the kit with 29 patients and discuss one patient who experienced anaphylaxis during i.d. testing.

Antibiotic allergy: immunochemical and clinical considerations

Antibiotics are among the most widely and heavily prescribed drugs, but despite this, allergic reactions to most groups of antibiotics are relatively uncommon-especially when compared with the number and frequency of type 1 hypersensitivity responses to the beta-lactams (ie, penicillins, cephalosporins, and, to a lesser extent, carbopenems). Still, there remains a steady flow of reports of allergic reactions to some topically used antibiotics (eg, rifamycin SV and bacitracin). Moreover, aminoglycosides (eg, neomycin and gramicidin) may be implicated more often than previously suspected. Despite advances in our understanding of the structural basis of the allergenicity of beta-lactam antibiotics, the insights have not readily transferred into routine use to improve diagnoses of reactions to individual penicillins and cephalosporins. This remains a challenge in drug allergy, as does the need for further chemical, immunologic, and clinical research on cephalosporin breakdown products and the so-called multiple antibiotic allergy syndrome.

Oral challenges are needed in the diagnosis of beta-lactam hypersensitivity

BACKGROUND

beta-lactams continue to remain the most commonly involved drug family in allergic drug reactions. They are often essential and there is a cost-effective and favourable risk-benefit ratio for the exploration of all suspicions of beta-lactam allergy. A firm diagnosis is always based on skin tests and sometimes on provocation tests. Recommendations have been published by allergy societies and distinguished scientists but they are not always concordant and can lead to some confusion for the practicing allergologist. The situation has even worsened since the world wide withdrawal of these penicillin determinants and since the predominance of amoxicillin and cephalosporin prescriptions in most countries. OBJECTIVE - METHOD: In a recent article, it was stated that patients with a penicillin allergy history and negative skin tests to major and minor penicillin determinants are at a low risk of relapse (0-5%) when receiving a beta-lactam. In this paper, our Drug Allergy and Hypersensitivity Database, a cohort database, was used to demonstrate that this statement is false. Standardized European Network for Drug Allergy questionnaires, skin test and challenge procedures were followed.

RESULTS

One-thousand two-hundred and eighteen subjects, 69.8% of female, 51.7% of atopics, were included. 21.1% had a true beta-lactam allergy confirmed by skin tests (178, 69.3%) or by drug provocation (79, 30.7%). 17.4% of the patients with negative skin tests to major and minor penicillin determinants were positive for a beta-lactam.

CONCLUSION

In the diagnosis of beta-lactams allergy, if all skin tests are negative, skin tests with other determinants and provocation tests under strict surveillance are mandatory.

Clinical presentation and time course in hypersensitivity reactions to beta-lactams

BACKGROUND

beta-lactam hypersensitivity reactions are classified as immediate or nonimmediate. Diagnosis is usually based upon skin tests and provocation challenges.

OBJECTIVE

The time course of the reactions in proven beta-lactam hypersensitivities was studied and then correlated with the symptoms to determine the relationship between the clinical presentations and the time course.

METHOD

All of the patients who consulted between 1996 and 2004 for a suspected beta-lactam hypersensitivity reaction were studied. Two hundred and ten patients with a proven hypersensitivity reaction diagnosed according to the European Network on Drug Allergy were included in the present study.

RESULTS

Of the patients, 36.7% had urticaria as a single symptom, 19.1% anaphylaxis without shock, 17.6% anaphylactic shock and 19.1% maculopapular exanthema. Anaphylactic shock and anaphylaxis mostly occurred within 1 h after drug administration. Exanthema mainly occurred after 24 h. Urticaria as a single symptom occurred at any time. A firm diagnosis was determined using immediate-reading skin prick (10.0%) and intradermal tests (38.1%), late-reading skin tests (19.1%) or provocation tests (32.9%).

CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL IMPLICATION

Depending on the time course of the reaction, three clinical groups were identified: anaphylaxis and anaphylactic shock (immediate reaction); maculopapular exanthema (late reaction) as well as urticaria (immediate and late reaction).

Recent advances in the diagnosis of drug allergy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The present review addresses the most recent literature regarding the diagnosis of drug hypersensitivity reactions, which can be classified as immediate or nonimmediate according to the time interval between the last drug administration and the onset. Immediate reactions occur within 1 h; nonimmediate ones occur after more than 1 h.

RECENT FINDINGS

Clinical and immunological studies suggest that type-I (IgE-mediated) and type-IV (cell-mediated) pathogenic mechanisms are involved in most immediate and nonimmediate reactions, respectively. New diagnostic tools, such as the basophil activation test and the lymphocyte activation test, have been developed and are under validation.

SUMMARY

In diagnosis, the patient's history is fundamental; the allergologic examination includes in-vivo and in-vitro tests selected on the basis of the clinical features. Prick, patch, and intradermal tests are the most readily available forms of allergy testing. Determination of specific IgE levels is still the most common in-vitro method for diagnosing immediate reactions. The sensitivity of allergologic tests is not 100%; in selected cases, therefore, provocation tests are necessary. The routine use of the basophil activation test and the lymphocyte activation test could increase the sensitivity of diagnostic work-ups, thus reducing the need for drug provocation tests.

PPL and MDM skin test: New test kit is helpful in detecting immediate-type allergy to beta-lactams

BACKGROUND

The diagnosis of PPL (major determinant) and MDM (minor determinant) sensitization as relevant allergens in beta-lactam allergy has been recently hampered by withdrawal from the market of formerly available test kits. We investigated a new PPL/MDM test kit in the work-up of beta-lactam allergy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

15 patients with history of beta-lactam allergy were investigated for specific IgE and received patch, skin prick (SPT) and intracutaneous tests (ICT; immediate and late readings) using the relevant beta-lactams. In addition the new test kit was used for parallel SPT and ICT.

RESULTS

14 women and 1 man (16-73 years) with immediate (n = 7), delayed (n = 7) or unclear (n = 1) reactions to beta-lactams 8-300 months previously (penicillin G/V n = 3, aminopenicillins n = 7, cephalosporins n = 4, unknown n = 2) were tested. In patients with immediate type reactions, n = 2 had specific IgE, n = 4 reacted to the new test kit (n = 3 MDM, all of whom reacted exclusively to this test, n = 1 PPL). Two patients with non-immediate reactions reacted to other beta-lactams.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data show that the new test kit may be helpful in detecting patients with immediate type allergy to beta-lactams. Without this test, in those three patients reacting exclusively to MDM, and oral provocation test would have been necessary to clarify their allergy. Data from larger groups of patients are needed to determine the sensitivity and specificity of this test kit.

Continued need of appropriate betalactam-derived skin test reagents for the management of allergy to betalactams

Immediate allergic reactions to betalactams (BLs) are due to IgE antibodies that recognize the ring-derived penicilloyl determinant or side-chain structures of common BLs. The presence of specific IgE antibodies can be demonstrated by skin testing, the determination of specific IgE antibodies in sera or their binding to basophils with subsequent activation upon contact with penicillins in vitro. Skin tests are still the most sensitive technique followed by in vitro tests, which may sometimes yield useful complementary information. The diversity of the response to BLs has meant that in some instances, in addition to benzylpenicillin-derived determinants, testing for amoxycillin, cephalosporins or other BLs may also be required to establish the diagnosis. The recent withdrawal from the market of BL-derived materials for skin testing will have a serious effect on public health, resulting in a return to the pre-1960 era before these reagents became available. Because of their greater sensitivity, these skin tests cannot yet be replaced by in vitro tests. Furthermore, skin tests are the most readily available form of allergy testing for physicians. This paper reviews the results of skin tests in BL allergy and provides evidence for their continued need.