Diagnosing nonimmediate reactions to cephalosporins

The Immediate and Delayed Maximal Nonirritating Skin Testing Concentrations of β-Lactam Antibiotics

BACKGROUND

Maximal skin testing (ST) nonirritant concentrations (NICs) are consistent for penicillin and aminopenicillin among guidelines. However, there is variability among guidelines for maximal ST NICs of cephalosporins.

OBJECTIVE

To determine maximal immediate and delayed ST NICs of 15 β-lactams in β-lactam-tolerant and β-lactam-naïve participants.

METHODS

We performed a single-center, nonrandomized prospective study between September 2019 and January 2022 in adult participants. Participants received skin prick testing (SPT) and intradermal test (IDT) injections at 6 increasing concentrations of 1 or more β-lactams. A concentration was considered irritant when more than 5% of participants had a positive test. A positive test was defined as a wheal ≥3 mm compared with negative control accompanied by a ≥5 mm flare for SPT/IDT and induration ≥5 mm with associated erythema at 48 hours for delayed readings (dIDT). Sensitivity analyses using 3 alternative IDT positive criteria were conducted.

RESULTS

A total of 747 participants with a median age of 64 (interquartile range: 54-72) years (52% male, 85% White, and 92% non-Hispanic) underwent 20,858 skin tests. All undiluted SPT concentrations were nonirritant. We found the following maximal IDT/dIDT NICs (mg/mL): ampicillin (41.6/125), ampicillin-sulbactam (93.8/187.5), aztreonam (6.3/25), cefazolin (55/165), cefepime (35/140), cefoxitin (45/90), ceftaroline (7.5/15), ceftriaxone (58.3/175), cefuroxime (55/110), ertapenem (16.6/50), imipenem-cilastin (6.3/25), meropenem (8.3/25), nafcillin (31.3/62.5), oxacillin (20.9/83.5), and piperacillin-tazobactam (112.5/225). dIDTs were almost all completely nonirritant close to or at undiluted concentrations. There were no differences when we applied 3 IDT positivity criteria to our raw data.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that SPTs with undiluted stock β-lactam antibiotic concentrations are nonirritant. Compared with previously published nonirritant concentrations, we propose a 2- to 50-fold increase to the maximal IDT and dIDT NICs of 15 β-lactam antibiotics. When performing dIDTs, a higher concentration should be used rather than the same IDT concentration.

Early testing and grade of the reaction are affecting factors of skin test positivity in β-Lactam allergies

Background: β-Lactams are the most widely used antibiotic family in the world. Nevertheless, they also stand out as the primary culprits for inducing drug hypersensitivity reactions (HSR). Methods: Between May 2018 and March 2023, patients with suspected HSRs to β-lactams, who underwent skin tests (ST), were retrospectively screened. The determinants of allergenic penicillin (DAP) tests, which include penicillin minor and major determinants, clavulanic acid, and amoxicillin, along with ampicillin, sulbactam, the identified culprit drugs, and alternative cephalosporins, which include cefuroxime, ceftriaxone prick and/or intradermal tests, were administered. The analysis focused on identifying positive ST results and determining the true HSRs rates in this patient cohort. Results: Of the 147 patients, 78.9% (n = 116) were women and the median (minimum-maximum) age was 41 years (18-71 years). Mild HSRs (grades 1-2) were observed in 72.78% (n = 107), whereas 24.4% (n = 36) had severe reactions (grades 3-4) and 2.7% (n = 4) had an unknown grade. Of the patients, 64% (n = 94) experienced HSRs within the first hour after the last dose of the identified culprit drug. The overall positivity rate for all STs was 26.5% (n = 39). ST positivity rates were notably higher in individuals who had experienced HSRs within the past 6 months (p = 0.02) and those with severe anaphylaxis (p < 0.001). Conclusion: β-Lactam ST positivity is higher, especially in those with grades 3-4 reactions and consulted a physician within the first 6 months after their HSRs.

Challenging dogmas: Intravenous versus oral beta-lactam antibiotic provocation tests

Background

Drug provocation tests (DPT) are considered the gold standard procedure to ascertain the diagnosis of beta-lactam (BL) allergy. Regarding route of administration, current recommendations prioritize oral challenges, considering them safer, and reserving the intravenous route for drugs for which this is the only formulation.

Objective

To compare in terms of tolerance and safety two protocols of BL DPT, using an oral protocol (OR-DPT) and an intravenous protocol (IV-DPT).

Methods

A descriptive, retrospective study was performed, including adult patients who underwent IV-DPT or OR-DPT for suspected immediate or delayed hypersensitivity to BL antibiotics, over a period of 4 years (between January 2018 and December 2021). Demographical data, index hypersensivity reactions' characteristics and tolerance to DPT were reviewed.

Results

A total of 1036 patients underwent DPT, mean age of 56.8 (standard deviation, SD, 17.8) years, 655 were women (63.2%). Immediate drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHR) had occurred in 564 of patients (54.4%). OR-DPT were performed in 439 (42.4%) and IV-DPT in 597 (57.6%). The frequency of reactions during DPT, regardless of the route used, was low (3.6%): only 16 (3.6%) in OR-DPT and 21 (3.5%) in IV-DPT. From IV-DPT, 16 out 21 DHR during DPT were immediate compared with 4 out of 16 in OR-DPT. Adjusted relative risk of developing a hypersensitivity reaction during IV-DPT versus OR-DPT was 1.13 (95% confidence interval (CI)0.57-2.22).

Conclusion

The results suggest that OR-DPT and IV-DPT are both safe procedures when adequately performed. However, IV-DPT protocols showed a higher rate of immediate DHR during DPT probably due to the selection of basal high-risk patients to undergo IV-DPT. In conclusion, IV-DPT may be considered as an option for challenges in drug-allergy studies, entailing a precise administration.

Approach for delabeling beta-lactam allergy in children

A considerable number of pediatric patients treated with beta-lactam (BL) antibiotics develop delayed onset of skin rashes during the course of treatment. Although the most frequent cause of these symptoms is infectious, many cases are labeled as allergic reactions to these drugs. BL allergy labels could have a negative impact, as they imply avoidance of this group of drugs and the use of second-line antibiotics, leading to a potential increase in adverse effects and the utilization of less effective therapies. This constitutes a major public health concern and economic burden, as the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics can result in multidrug-resistant organisms and prolonged hospital stays. Therefore, it is crucial to delabel patients during childhood to avoid false labeling in adult life. Although the label of BL allergy is among the most frequent causes of allergy referral, its management remains controversial, and new diagnostic perspectives are changing the paradigm of managing BL allergies in children. Traditionally, drug provocation testing (DPT) was exclusively performed in patients who had previously obtained negative results from skin tests (STs). However, the sensitivity of STs is low, and the role of in vitro testing in the pediatric population is not well defined. Recent studies have demonstrated the safety of direct DPT without prior ST or serum tests for pediatric patients who report a low-risk reaction to BLs, which is cost-effective. However, there is still a debate on the optimal allergic workup to be performed in children with a benign immediate reaction and the management of children with severe cutaneous adverse drug reactions. In this review, we will discuss the impact of the label of BL allergy and the role of the different tools currently available to efficiently address BL allergy delabeling in children.

Diagnosis and selection of alternative antibiotics in beta-lactams hypersensitivity reactions: Current recommendations and challenges

Beta-lactam (BLM) antibiotics, including amino-penicillin and cephalosporins, are typically the first-choice treatment for bacterial infections. However, adverse reactions to these antibiotics are frequently reported, causing non-allergist physicians to select alternative broad-spectrum antibiotics that can have harmful consequences. Patients with unclear histories of hypersensitivity reactions to BLMs should undergo an allergy workup to establish a firm diagnosis, particularly when different drugs are prescribed simultaneously. However, finding the safest, most precise, and cost-effective methods for confirming BLMs hypersensitivity and selecting the most appropriate alternative BLM is uncertain, particularly in severe delayed reactions. This review aims to provide data and recommendations on the availability and validity of skin tests (STs), drug provocation test (DPT) protocols, based on the latest published literature and guideline. To make the process more practical, we focused on cross-reactivity between BLMs and diagnostic tests. There are two main novel aspects of this document: 1) For T-cell-mediated reactions, patient stratification into high, moderate, and low-risk groups based on the mortality and morbidity of adverse drug reactions. 2) For IgE-mediated reactions, stratification of individuals with isolated limited urticarial without anaphylaxis in a low-risk group and removal of the extensive limitation.

Drug reintroduction testing and beta-lactam hypersensitivity in children: Protocols and results, a 12-year experience

Introduction: Oral provocation test (OPT) to beta-lactam antibiotics (BL) is a gold standard in allergology investigation. We aimed to demonstrate the contribution of OPT in BL hypersensitivity (HS) indicated as a first step in diagnosis. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study from 2007 to 2019, in a single Tunisian tertiary care academic center. It concerned children with presumed non-severe allergic manifestations to BL, with a reaction that has occurred at least 6 months before the OPT. Results: We identified 35 children for inclusion. After the first OPT, a second OPT with a different BL was performed in case of a positive result of the first one. In 12 cases (34.2%), the OPT elicited a reaction. In eight cases the allergy was to penicillin and in two cases to cephalosporins (cefixim). Cross-reactivity was noted in two cases. Conclusion: An OPT to BL indicated in the first instance in non-severe reaction in children will allow a rapid diagnosis in case of suspicion of HS to BL.

Yenidoğanlarda seftriakson kullanımının yan etkilerinin değerlendirilmesi

Amaç: Seftriakson yan etkileri nedeniyle yenidoğanda sınırlı kullanıma sahiptir. Yenidoğan enfeksiyonlarında kullanımı ile ilgili sınırlı sayıda çalışma vardır. Bu çalışma ile setriakson alan yenidoğanlarda seftriakson sonrası oluşabilecek yan etkilerin değerlendirilmesi amaçlanmıştır. Gereç ve Yöntem: Çukurova Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Balcalı Hastanesi Yenidoğan Yoğun Bakım Ünitesi’nde, 2015-2016 yılları arasında yatan bebeklerin seftriakson tedavisi öncesi ve sonrası klinik ve laboratuvar verileri retrospektif olarak incelenmiştir. Bulgular: Çalışmaya 30 olgu alınmıştır. Bu bebeklerin ortalama gebelik yaşı 37 ± 3,1 (30-41) hafta, seftriakson aldığı süre 7,2 ± 2,2 (2-12) gün bulunmuştur. 30 olgudan alınan idrar kültürlerinde; 17 (%56,6) bebekte üreme saptanmıştır. Bunların 11’inde (%36,6) Escherischia coli (E. coli), 5’inde (%16,7) diğer bakteriler üremiştir. Olguların seftriakson öncesi ve sonrası laboratuvar verilerinde kan üre azotu (BUN), total bilirubin (TB) ve hematokrit değerlerinde anlamlı düşüş saptanmıştır. Seftriakson kullanımına bağlı herhangi bir yan etki izlenmemiştir. Sonuç: Çalışmamızda seftriakson sonrası komplikasyon görülmemiş olması term veya terme yakın yenidoğanlarda seftriakson kullanımı için cesaret verici olabilir. Fakat, yenidoğanda seftriaksonun yan etkilerinin ve sıklıklarının kesinleştirilmesi ve yenidoğanda kullanılan diğer antibiyotiklere karşı alternatif olup olamayacağının belirlenmesi için daha fazla araştırmalara ihtiyaç vardır.

Management of Beta-Lactam Antibiotics Allergy: A Real-Life Study

Beta-lactam allergy is a common problem in everyday medical practice and is recognized as a major public health issue. Carrying this label frequently leads to the avoidance of all beta-lactam antibiotics, favoring the use of other less preferred classes of antibiotics, that are more expensive and associated with more side effects and increased antimicrobial resistance. Therefore, delabeling a beta-lactam allergy is part of antimicrobial stewardship programs. Herein, we retrospectively examined the clinical records of 576 patients who were referred to our center for a label of allergy to beta-lactam antibiotics and were systematically investigated following a standardized algorithm. Our main aim was to evaluate the frequency of confirmed immediate- and delayed-type allergy to commonly prescribed subclasses of beta-lactam antibiotics (penicillin and cephalosporin), as well as the negative predictive value (NPV) and the sensitivity of skin tests. Our secondary aims were to examine the safety of beta-lactam skin testing and drug challenge. We identified that 260 patients reported a history of immediate reactions, 131 of delayed reactions, and 114 of unknown timing or mechanism of reactions. Following assessment and testing, 86 (18.3%) patients had a confirmed allergy to any beta-lactam antibiotics; 63 (13.4%) with an immediate- and 23 (4.9%) with a delayed-type reaction. Most frequently identified confirmed allergy was to penicillins (65 patients), followed by cephalosporins (21 patients). When immediate-type reactions were examined, NPV of skin tests were 96.3% and 100% for penicillins and cephalosporins, respectively. When delayed reactions were considered, NPV were 91.9 and 87.5% for penicillins and cephalosporins, respectively. Evaluation of the safety of skin tests according to the standardized procedure showed that systemic allergic reactions occurred in only 0.7% of skin tests and in 3.1% of drug challenges. Overall, our data indicate that only 18.3% of patients with a beta-lactam allergy label have a confirmed allergy and non-allergic patients can be safely delabeled through allergic workup based on skin tests and drug challenge. This approach supports the policy of saving second-line antibiotics through a standardized allergy workup.

Diagnostic Approach of Hypersensitivity Reactions to Cefazolin in a Large Prospective Cohort

BACKGROUND

Cefazolin is a common trigger of perioperative anaphylaxis. The diagnostic approach is controversial because the optimal concentration for skin testing is uncertain, drug provocation tests (DPTs) are contraindicated in severe reactions, and in vitro tests are not thoroughly validated.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to characterize a large number of patients reporting cefazolin allergic reactions and to analyze the diagnostic role of in vivo and in vitro tests.

METHODS

We prospectively evaluated patients with suspicion for allergic reactions to cefazolin by clinical history, skin tests (STs), and, if negative, DPT. In a subgroup of patients, basophil activation test (BAT) and radioallergosorbent test were done before allergologic workup was performed and the final diagnosis was achieved.

RESULTS

We evaluated 184 patients, 76 of whom were confirmed as allergic (41.3%), 90 were nonallergic (48.9%), and 18 were nonconfirmed (9.8%). All patients reporting anaphylactic shock and most reporting anaphylaxis were confirmed to be allergic (P < .001). Forty allergic patients (52.6%) were confirmed by STs, 22 by DPT (28.9%), and 14 by clinical history (18.4%). All subjects manifesting exanthemas and pruritus were nonallergic. The BAT sensitivity was 66.7% when CD63 and CD203c were combined as activation markers. Six of 8 patients with negative STs and positive DPT had a positive BAT.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients allergic to cefazolin often reported severe immediate-type reactions. Skin tests enabled a diagnosis in half of patients when using cefazolin at 20 mg/mL. Unfortunately, DPT could not be performed in all patients owing to reaction severity, which makes BAT a promising diagnostic tool. Further research is needed to clarify the underlying mechanisms, especially in severe reactions.

Delabeling Delayed Drug Hypersensitivity: How Far Can You Safely Go?

Delayed immune-mediated adverse drug reactions (IM-ADRs) are defined as reactions occurring more than 6 hours after dosing. They include heterogeneous clinical phenotypes that are typically T-cell-mediated reactions with distinct mechanisms across a wide spectrum of severity from benign exanthems through to life-threatening cutaneous or organ-specific diseases. For mild reactions such as benign exanthem, considerations for delabeling are similar to immediate reactions and may include a graded or single-dose drug challenge with or without preceding skin or patch testing. Evaluation of challenging cases such as the patient who is on multiple drugs at the time a severe delayed IM-ADR occurs should prioritize clinical ascertainment of the most likely phenotype and implicated drug(s). Although not widely available and validated, procedures such as patch testing, delayed intradermal skin testing, and laboratory-based functional drug assays or genetic (human leukocyte antigen) testing may provide valuable information to further help risk stratify patients and identify the likely implicated and/or cross-reactive drug(s). The decision to use a drug challenge as a diagnostic or delabeling tool in a patient with a severe delayed IM-ADR should weigh the risk-benefit ratio, balancing the severity and priority for the treatment of the underlying, and the availability of alternative efficacious and safe treatments.

β-Lactam Allergy and Cross-Reactivity: A Clinician's Guide to Selecting an Alternative Antibiotic

β-Lactams which include penicillins, cephalosporins, carbapenems, and monobactams are the most common antibiotic classes reported to cause allergic reactions to drugs. This review is mainly about published studies assessing the cross-reactivity among β-lactams in penicillin- or cephalosporin-allergic subjects by carrying out diagnostic tests with alternative β-lactams and, if appropriate, graded challenges. Several studies demonstrated that cross-reactivity connected with the β-lactam ring, causing positive responses to allergy tests with all β-lactams, is infrequent in subjects with an IgE-mediated allergy and anecdotal in those with a T-cell-mediated allergy. Identities or similarities of β-lactam side-chain structures are mainly responsible for cross-reactivity among these antibiotics. For example, in aminopenicillin-allergic subjects, cross-reactivity with aminocephalosporins could possibly be over 30%. On the other hand, in a few prospective studies of penicillin-allergic individuals, less than 1% of cases show a cross-reactivity between penicillins and both aztreonam and carbapenems. Particular patterns of allergy-test positivity observed in some studies that assessed cross-reactivity among β-lactams seem to indicate that prior exposures may be responsible for coexisting sensitivities. Therefore, pre-treatment skin tests with the related β-lactams are suggested before administering them via graded challenges to β-lactam-allergic patients who need alternative β-lactams.

Towards a more precise diagnosis of hypersensitivity to beta-lactams - an EAACI position paper

A recent survey of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) Drug Allergy Interest Group (DAIG) on how European allergy specialists deal with beta-lactam (BL) hypersensitivity demonstrated a significant heterogeneity in current practice, suggesting the need to review and update existing EAACI guidelines in order to make the diagnostic procedures as safe and accurate, but also as cost-effective, as possible. For this purpose, a bibliographic search on large studies regarding BL hypersensitivity diagnosis was performed by an EAACI task force, which reviewed and evaluated the literature data using the GRADE system for quality of evidence and strength of recommendation. The updated guidelines provide a risk stratification in BL hypersensitivity according to index reaction(s), as well as an algorithmic approach, based on cross-reactivity studies, in patients with a suspicion of BL hypersensitivity and an immediate need for antibiotic therapy, when referral to an allergist is not feasible. Furthermore, the update addresses availability and concentrations of skin test (ST) reagents, ST and drug provocation test (DPT) protocols, and diagnostic algorithms and administration of alternative BL in allergic subjects. Specifically, distinct diagnostic algorithms are suggested depending on risk stratification of the patient into high and low risk based on the morphology and chronology of the reaction, immediate (ie, occurring within 1-6 hours after the last administered dose) or nonimmediate (ie, occurring more than 1 hour after the initial drug administration), and the reaction severity. Regarding the allergy workup, the main novelty of this document is the fact that in some low-risk nonimmediate reactions ST are not mandatory, especially in children. For DPT, further studies are necessary to provide data supporting the standardization of protocols, especially of those regarding nonimmediate reactions, for which there is currently no consensus.

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.

Immediate cephalosporin allergy

BACKGROUND

Patients who suffer from acute IgE-mediated allergy to a cephalosporin antibiotic are frequently assumed to be at high risk of allergy to other cephalosporins and penicillins.

AIM

To define cross-reactivity patterns in patients with confirmed allergy to a cephalosporin.

METHODS

Subjects presenting with a history of immediate allergy to a cephalosporin-family antibiotic between March 2009 and July 2017 were investigated with specific IgE testing to penicillin, amoxycillin and cefaclor, followed by skin prick testing, intradermal testing and drug provocation testing with a panel of penicillins and cephalosporins.

RESULTS

Out of 564 subjects with a reported beta-lactam allergy, 90 identified a cephalosporin as their index drug. Fifty-five (61.1%) of the 90 subjects tested had a history consistent with an IgE-mediated reaction, of whom 24 (43.6%) were proven to be allergic to their index cephalosporin. Twenty (83.3%) of the 24 were allergic only to their index cephalosporin. Of the four remaining subjects, two were co-sensitised to another beta-lactam with a similar side chain, while the other two had no specific cross-reactivity pattern. Major and minor penicillin determinants were negative for all cephalosporin-allergic individuals.

CONCLUSION

In our cohort, cephalosporin allergy does not appear to be a class effect, with most cases found allergic only to their index cephalosporin. Co-sensitisation to other cephalosporins or penicillins was uncommon, and when it occurred, was usually consistent with side chain cross-reactivity.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

PATIENTS/MATERIALS/METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Cross-Reactivity to Cephalosporins and Carbapenems in Penicillin-Allergic Patients: Two Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

BACKGROUND

There is no recent systematic review on the risk of cross-reactivity to cephalosporins and carbapenems in penicillin-allergic patients despite many new studies on the subject. All past reviews have several limitations such as not including any patient with a T-cell-mediated penicillin allergy.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the risk of cross-reactivity to cephalosporins and carbapenems in patients with a proven IgE- or T-cell-mediated penicillin allergy. To measure the association between R1 side chain similarity on cephalosporins and penicillins and the risk of cross-reactivity.

METHODS

MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched from January 1980 to March 2019. Studies had to include at least 10 penicillin-allergic subjects whose allergy had been confirmed by a positive skin test (ST) or drug provocation test (DPT) result. Cross-reactivity had to be assessed to at least 1 cephalosporin or carbapenem through ST or DPT. Both random-effects and fixed-effect models were used to combine data. A bioinformatic model was used to quantify the similarity between R1 side chains.

RESULTS

Twenty-one observational studies on cephalosporin cross-reactivity involving 1269 penicillin-allergic patients showed that the risk of cross-reactivity varied with the degree of similarity between R1 side chains: 16.45% (95% CI, 11.07-23.75) for aminocephalosporins, which share an identical side chain with a penicillin (similarity score = 1), 5.60% (95% CI, 3.46-8.95) for a few cephalosporins with an intermediate similarity score (range, 0.563-0.714), and 2.11% (95% CI, 0.98-4.46) for all those with low similarity scores (below 0.4), irrespective of cephalosporin generation. The higher risk associated with aminocephalosporins was observed whether penicillin allergy was IgE- or T-cell-mediated. Eleven observational studies on carbapenem cross-reactivity involving 1127 penicillin-allergic patients showed that the risk of cross-reactivity to any carbapenem was 0.87% (95% CI, 0.32-2.32).

CONCLUSIONS

Although it remains possible that these meta-analyses overestimated the risk of cross-reactivity, clinicians should consider the increased risk of cross-reactivity associated with aminocephalosporins, and to a lesser extent with intermediate-similarity-score cephalosporins, compared with the very low risk associated with low-similarity-score cephalosporins and all carbapenems when using beta-lactams in patients with a suspected or proven penicillin allergy.

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.

Cephalosporin Allergy: Current Understanding and Future Challenges

Cephalosporins are commonly used antibiotics both in hospitalized patients and in outpatients. Hypersensitivity reactions to cephalosporins are becoming increasingly common with a wide range of immunopathologic mechanisms. Cephalosporins are one of the leading causes for perioperative anaphylaxis and severe cutaneous adverse reactions. Patients allergic to cephalosporins tend to tolerate cephalosporins with disparate R1 side chains but may react to other beta-lactams with common R1 side chains. Skin testing for cephalosporins has not been well validated but appears to have a good negative predictive value for cephalosporins with disparate R1 side chains. In vitro tests including basophil activation tests have lower sensitivity when compared with skin testing. Rapid drug desensitization procedures are safe and effective and have been used successfully for immediate and some nonimmediate cephalosporin reactions. Many gaps in knowledge still exist regarding cephalosporin hypersensitivity.

Cross-Reactivity and Tolerability of Cephalosporins in Patients with IgE-Mediated Hypersensitivity to Penicillins

BACKGROUND

Studies performed since 1990 on samples of at least 30 subjects with a documented IgE-mediated hypersensitivity to penicillins have found a rate of positive responses to allergy tests with cephalosporins ranging from 0% to 27%.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to assess the cross-reactivity with cephalosporins and evaluate the possibility of using cephalosporins in penicillin-allergic subjects.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective study of 252 consecutive subjects who had suffered 319 immediate reactions (mostly anaphylaxis) to penicillins and had positive skin tests to at least 1 penicillin reagent. All patients underwent serum specific IgE assays for cefaclor, as well as skin tests with 3 aminocephalosporins (cephalexin, cefaclor, and cefadroxil), cefamandole, cefuroxime, ceftazidime, ceftriaxone, cefotaxime, and cefepime. Patients with negative results for the last 5 cephalosporins were challenged with cefuroxime axetil and ceftriaxone; those with negative results for aminocephalosporins were also challenged with cefaclor and cefadroxil.

RESULTS

Ninety-nine participants (39.3%) had positive allergy tests for cephalosporins. Specifically, 95 (37.7%) were positive to aminocephalosporins and/or cefamandole, which share similar or identical side chains with penicillins. All 244 subjects who underwent challenges with cefuroxime axetil and ceftriaxone tolerated them. Of the 170 patients who underwent aminocephalosporin challenges, 3 reacted to cefaclor and 4 to cefadroxil.

CONCLUSIONS

Cross-reactivity between penicillins and cephalosporins seems to be mainly related to side chain similarity or identity. Subjects with an IgE-mediated hypersensitivity to penicillins could be treated with cephalosporins such as cefuroxime and ceftriaxone that have side-chain determinants different from those of penicillins and are negative in pretreatment skin testing.

The 3 Cs of Antibiotic Allergy-Classification, Cross-Reactivity, and Collaboration

Antibiotic allergy labeling is highly prevalent and negatively impacts patient outcomes and antibiotic appropriateness. Reducing the prevalence and burden of antibiotic allergies requires the engagement of key stakeholders such as allergists, immunologists, pharmacists, and infectious diseases physicians. To help address this burden of antibiotic allergy overlabeling, we review 3 key antibiotic allergy domains: (1) antibiotic allergy classification, (2) antibiotic cross-reactivity, and (3) multidisciplinary collaboration. We review the available evidence and research gaps of currently used adverse drug reaction classification systems, antibiotic allergy cross-reactivity, and current and future models of antibiotic allergy care.

[Hypersensitivity reactions to beta-lactam antibiotics]

Allergy to beta-lactam antibiotics is a common condition and about 10% of patients report being allergic to penicillin. However, this diagnosis is largely overestimated. Two types of allergy should be distinguished and include immediate hypersensitivity that can lead to anaphylactic shock and delayed hypersensitivity, ranging from the most common maculopapular exanthema to severe bullous toxidermia or life-threatening DRESS. Allergy challenge with oriented skin tests according to the clinical features, supplemented with oral challenge in the absence of contraindication, will confirm or invalidate the diagnosis of beta-lactam allergy and will help to identify if necessary safe alternatives to beta-lactams.

Non-immediate Cutaneous Reactions to Beta-Lactams: Approach to Diagnosis

Non-immediate cutaneous reactions (i.e., occurring at least 1 h after the initial drug administration), particularly maculopapular exanthemas and urticarial eruptions, are common during beta-lactam treatments. A T cell-mediated pathogenic mechanism has been demonstrated in some cutaneous reactions, such as maculopapular exanthema, fixed drug eruption, acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis, and drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome. In the diagnostic work-up, patch testing is useful, together with delayed-reading intradermal testing. Patch tests are a simple and safe diagnostic tool, which in the case of severe reactions should be used as the first line of investigation. However, patch tests are less sensitive than intradermal tests, which are preferable in subjects with mild reactions. Lymphocyte transformation or activation tests and enzyme-linked immunosorbent spot assays can be used as complementary tests. In selected cases of mild or moderate reactions, displaying negative results in the aforesaid allergy tests, a graded challenge with the implicated beta-lactam can be performed.

Approach to the diagnosis of drug hypersensitivity reactions: similarities and differences between Europe and North America

Drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) affect an unknown proportion of the general population, and are an important public health problem due to their potential to cause life-threatening anaphylaxis and rare severe cutaneous allergic reactions. DHR evaluations are frequently needed in both ambulatory and hospital settings and have a complex diagnosis that requires a detailed clinical history and other tests that may include in vitro tests and in vivo procedures such as skin tests and drug provocation tests. Although over the years both European and U.S. experts have published statements on general procedures for evaluating DHRs, a substantial discordance in their daily management exists. In this review, we highlight both the differences and the similarities between the European and U.S. perspectives. While a general consensus exists on the importance of skin tests for evaluating DHRs, concordance between Americans and Europeans exists solely regarding their use in immediate reactions and the fact that a confirmation of a presumptive diagnosis by drug provocation tests is often the only reliable way to establish a diagnosis. Finally, great heterogeneity exists in the application of in vitro tests, which require further study to be well validated.

Old dog begging for new tricks: current practices and future directions in the diagnosis of delayed antimicrobial hypersensitivity

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Antimicrobials are a leading cause of severe T cell-mediated adverse drug reactions (ADRs). The purpose of this review is to address the current understanding of antimicrobial cross-reactivity and the ready availability of and evidence for in-vitro, in-vivo, and ex-vivo diagnostics for T cell-mediated ADRs.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent literature has evaluated the efficacy of traditional antibiotic allergy management, including patch testing, skin prick testing, intradermal testing, and oral challenge. Although patch and intradermal testing are specific for the diagnosis of immune-mediated ADRs, they suffer from drug-specific limitations in sensitivity. The use of ex-vivo diagnostics, especially enzyme-linked immunospot, has been highlighted as a promising new approach to assigning causality. Knowledge of true rates of antimicrobial cross-reactivity aids empirical antibiotic choice in the setting of previous immune-mediated ADRs.

SUMMARY

In an era of increasing antimicrobial resistance and use of broad-spectrum antimicrobial therapy, ensuring patients are assigned the correct 'allergy label' is essential. Re-exposure to implicated antimicrobials, especially in the setting of severe adverse cutaneous reaction, is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. The process through which an antibiotic label gets assigned, acted on and maintained is still imprecise. Predicting T cell-mediated ADRs via personalized approaches, including human leukocyte antigen-typing, may pave future pathways to safer antimicrobial prescribing guidelines.

Cross-Reactivity among Beta-Lactams

Penicillins and cephalosporins are the major classes of beta-lactam (BL) antibiotics in use today and one of the most frequent causes of hypersensitivity reactions to drugs. Monobactams, carbapenems, oxacephems, and beta-lactamase inhibitors constitute the four minor classes of BLs. This review takes into account mainly the prospective studies which evaluated cross-reactivity among BLs in subjects with a well-demonstrated hypersensitivity to a certain class of BLs by performing allergy tests with alternative BLs and, in case of negative results, administering them. In subjects with either IgE-mediated or T-cell-mediated hypersensitivity, cross-reactivity among BLs, particularly among penicillins and among cephalosporins, as well as between penicillins and cephalosporins, seems to be mainly related to structural similarities among their side-chain determinants. Specifically, in penicillin-allergic subjects, cross-reactivity between penicillins and cephalosporins may exceed 30% when they are administered cephalosporins with identical side chains to those of responsible penicillins. In these subjects, a few prospective studies have demonstrated a rate of cross-reactivity between penicillins and both carbapenems and aztreonam lower than 1%. With regard to subjects with an IgE-mediated hypersensitivity to cephalosporins, in a single study, about 25% of the 98 subjects with such hypersensitivity had positive results to penicillins, 3% to aztreonam, 2% to imipenem/cilastatin, and 1% to meropenem. The cross-reactivity related to the selective recognition of the BL ring by IgE or T lymphocytes, which entails positive responses to all BLs tested, appears to be exceptional. Some studies concerning cross-reactivity among BLs have found patterns of allergy-test positivity which cannot be explained by either the common BL ring or by similar or identical side chains, thus indicating the possibility of coexisting sensitivities to different BLs because of prior exposures to them.

Non-immediate hypersensitivity reactions to beta-lactam antibiotics in children - our 10-year experience in allergy work-up

BACKGROUND

Non-immediate reactions to beta-lactam antibiotics (BL) occur more than one hour after drug administration, and the most common manifestations are maculopapular exanthemas and delayed-appearing urticaria and/or angioedema. Infections can lead to skin eruptions and mimic drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHR), if a drug is taken at the same time. The most of children are labeled as 'drug allergic' after considering only the clinical history.

OBJECTIVE

To diagnose/detect a hypersensitivity or an infection which mimic DHR in children with non-immediate reactions to BL METHODS: A prospective survey was conducted in a group of 1026 children with histories of non-immediate reactions to BL by performing patch tests, skin tests, and in case of negative results, drug provocation tests (DPTs). In 300 children, a study was performed to detect infections by viruses or Mycoplasma pneumoniae.

RESULTS

Urticaria and maculopapular exanthemas were the most reported non-immediate reactions. Only 76 (7.4%) of 1026 children had confirmed non-immediate hypersensitivity reactions to BL. Fifty-seven children had positive delayed-reading intradermal tests (18 of these with a positive patch test). Nineteen children had positive DPT. Sixty-six of 300 children had positive tests for viruses or Mycoplasma pneumoniae and 2 of them had a positive allergy work-up.

CONCLUSIONS

A diagnostic work-up should be performed in all children with non-immediate reactions to BL, to remove a false label of hypersensitivity. Even though only 57 (5.5%) of 1026 children displayed positive responses to delayed-reading intradermal tests to BL, such tests appear to be useful in order to reduce the risk for positive DPTs.

Cross-reactivity and tolerability of aztreonam and cephalosporins in subjects with a T cell-mediated hypersensitivity to penicillins

BACKGROUND

The few studies performed in adults with T cell-mediated hypersensitivity to penicillins have found a rate of cross-reactivity with cephalosporins ranging from 2.8% to 31.2% and an absence of cross-reactivity with aztreonam.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to evaluate the possibility of using cephalosporins and aztreonam in subjects with documented delayed hypersensitivity to penicillins who especially require them.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective study of 214 consecutive subjects who had 307 nonimmediate reactions to penicillins (almost exclusively aminopenicillins) and had positive patch test and/or delayed-reading skin test responses to at least 1 penicillin reagent. To assess cross-reactivity with cephalosporins and aztreonam and the tolerability of such alternative β-lactams, all subjects underwent skin tests with cephalexin, cefaclor, cefadroxil, cefuroxime, ceftriaxone, and aztreonam. Subjects with negative responses were challenged with the alternative β-lactams concerned.

RESULTS

All subjects had negative skin test results to cefuroxime, ceftriaxone, and aztreonam and tolerated challenges. Forty (18.7%) of the 214 subjects had positive skin test responses to at least 1 aminocephalosporin. Of the 174 subjects with negative responses, 170 underwent challenges; 1 reacted to cefaclor.

CONCLUSIONS

These data demonstrate a rate of cross-reactivity between aminopenicillins and aminocephalosporins (ie, cephalexin, cefaclor, and cefadroxil) of around 20%, as well as the absence of cross-reactivity between penicillins and cefuroxime, ceftriaxone, and aztreonam in all subjects with T cell-mediated hypersensitivity to penicillins, almost exclusively aminopenicillins. Therefore these subjects could be treated with cefuroxime, ceftriaxone, and aztreonam. In those who especially require cephalosporin or aztreonam treatment, however, we recommend pretreatment skin tests because negative responses indicate tolerability.

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.

Diagnosis and management of immediate hypersensitivity reactions to cephalosporins

Cephalosporins can cause a range of hypersensitivity reactions, including IgE-mediated, immediate reactions. Cephalosporin allergy has been reported with use of a specific cephalosporin, as a cross-reaction between different cephalosporins or as a cross-reaction to other β-lactam antibiotics. Unlike penicillins, the exact allergenic determinants of cephalosporins are less well understood and thus, standardized diagnostic skin testing is not available. Nevertheless, skin testing with diluted solutions of cephalosporins can be valuable in confirming IgE-mediated hypersensitivity reactions. In vitro tests are in development using recent technological advances and can be used as complementary tests. However, they are not commonly used because of their reduced sensitivity and limited availability. In selected cases of inconclusive results in both skin tests and IgE assays, a graded challenge or induction of drug tolerance with the implicated cephalosporin should be performed.

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 and patch testing in non-IgE-mediated drug allergy

Drug skin tests can reproduce delayed hypersensitivity to drugs and entail a moderate reexposure of patients to offending drugs. Drug patch tests (DPTs) and prick tests can be done with any commercialized form of a drug. In non-severe delayed non-IgE-mediated reactions to drugs, intradermal tests (IDT) with delayed readings have a greater value, but their techniques lack standardization. A negative drug skin test does not exclude the responsibility of a drug, and the drug must be rechallenged in non-severe cases. DPTs are useful in maculopapular rashes, flexural exanthemas, and if done in situ, also in fixed drug eruption. Their best indication is in acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis or drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS). They should be carried out cautiously, following strict guidelines. Prick tests have a low value but they can sometimes be positive on delayed readings. In non-severe delayed reactions to drugs, intradermal tests with delayed readings are the most sensitive skin tests especially for beta-lactam antibiotics, radiocontrast media, heparins but also some biological agents. The value of patch testing varies according to the implicated drug and the non-immediate adverse drug reaction. In DRESS, DPTs have a good value in testing carbamazepine or proton pump inhibitors but remain negative in testing with allopurinol or salazopyrin. In toxic epidermal necrolysis, DPTs are safe but positive in only 9 to 23 % of the reported cases.

Antibiotic allergies in children and adults: from clinical symptoms to skin testing diagnosis

Hypersensitivity reactions to β-lactam and non-β-lactam antibiotics are commonly reported. They can be classified as immediate or nonimmediate according to the time interval between the last drug administration and their onset. Immediate reactions occur within 1 hour after the last drug administration and are manifested clinically by urticaria and/or angioedema, rhinitis, bronchospasm, and anaphylactic shock; they may be mediated by specific IgE-antibodies. Nonimmediate reactions occur more than 1 hour after the last drug administration. The most common manifestations are maculopapular exanthems; specific T lymphocytes may be involved in this type of manifestation. The diagnostic evaluation of hypersensitivity reactions to antibiotics is usually complex. The patient's history is fundamental; the allergic examination is based mainly on in vivo tests selected on the basis of the clinical features and the type of reaction, immediate or nonimmediate. Immediate reactions can be assessed by immediate-reading skin tests and, in selected cases, drug provocation tests. Nonimmediate reactions can be assessed by delayed-reading skin tests, patch tests, and drug provocation tests. However, skin tests have been well validated mainly for β-lactams but less for other classes of antibiotics.

A UK national survey of investigations for beta-lactam hypersensitivity - heterogeneity in practice and a need for national guidelines - on behalf of British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology (BSACI)

BACKGROUND

Beta lactams (BL) are the most widely prescribed antibiotics in the UK and the commonest cause of hypersensitivity reactions. There are no UK guidelines for BL testing and the most relevant guidelines were devised by the European Network for Drug Allergy (ENDA) on behalf of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology.

OBJECTIVE

Delivery of allergy services differs across Europe, so this survey was designed to investigate how closely UK practice adhered to these guidelines.

METHODS

An online survey, using surveymonkey.com software, was sent to all consultants offering an allergy service in the UK and who were members of either BSACI or 'Travellers' (Immunology consultant group).

RESULTS

The response rate was 48% (n=81/165) and BL allergy testing was undertaken by 78% of respondents. All responders requested SsIgE, although four responders stated they rarely requested. Skin testing was undertaken by 87% of respondents who perform beta lactam testing with 17% undertaking skin prick testing (SPT) only, 77% SPT followed by intra-dermal testing (IDT) if the former were negative or indeterminate and 6% SPT and IDT in all cases. The drugs, doses and protocols for skin testing varied considerably. Drug provocation testing was undertaken by 87% of respondents who undertake beta lactam testing with significant heterogeneity in protocols. Respondents that investigated ≤ 20 patients per year demonstrated lower adherence to ENDA recommendations compared to those who saw > 20. Following positive testing, 79% advised avoidance of all penicillins only and the remainder advised additional drug avoidance.

CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This survey revealed variation in the investigation and management of BL hypersensitivity in the UK with some centres reporting procedures that could potentially put patients at risk of anaphylaxis if allergy was falsely excluded. This survey highlights an urgent need for evidence based national guidelines and standardisation of practice.

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

Skin tests are of paramount importance for the evaluation of drug hypersensitivity reactions. Drug skin tests are often not carried out because of lack of concise information on specific test concentrations. The diagnosis of drug allergy is often based on history alone, which is an unreliable indicator of true hypersensitivity.To promote and standardize reproducible skin testing with safe and nonirritant drug concentrations in the clinical practice, the European Network and European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) Interest Group on Drug Allergy has performed a literature search on skin test drug concentration in MEDLINE and EMBASE, reviewed and evaluated the literature in five languages using the GRADE system for quality of evidence and strength of recommendation. Where the literature is poor, we have taken into consideration the collective experience of the group.We recommend drug concentration for skin testing aiming to achieve a specificity of at least 95%. It has been possible to recommend specific drug concentration for betalactam antibiotics, perioperative drugs, heparins, platinum salts and radiocontrast media. For many other drugs, there is insufficient evidence to recommend appropriate drug concentration. There is urgent need for multicentre studies designed to establish and validate drug skin test concentration using standard protocols. For most drugs, sensitivity of skin testing is higher in immediate hypersensitivity compared to nonimmediate hypersensitivity.

Advances in allergic skin disease, anaphylaxis, and hypersensitivity reactions to foods, drugs, and insects in 2012

This review highlights some of the research advances in anaphylaxis; hypersensitivity reactions to foods, drugs, and insects; and allergic skin diseases that were reported in the Journal in 2012. Studies support an increase in peanut allergy prevalence in children and exposure to the antibacterial agent triclosan and having filaggrin (FLG) loss-of-function mutations as risk factors for food sensitization. The role of specific foods in causing eosinophilic esophagitis is elucidated by several studies, and microRNA analysis is identified as a possible noninvasive disease biomarker. Studies on food allergy diagnosis emphasize the utility of component testing and the possibility of improved diagnosis through stepped approaches, epitope-binding analysis, and bioinformatics. Treatment studies of food allergy show promise for oral immunotherapy, but tolerance induction remains elusive, and additional therapies are under study. Studies on anaphylaxis suggest an important role for platelet-activating factor and its relationship to the need for prompt treatment with epinephrine. Insights on the pathophysiology and diagnosis of non-IgE-mediated drug allergy are offered, with novel data regarding the interaction of drugs with HLA molecules. Numerous studies support influenza vaccination of persons with egg allergy using modest precautions. Evidence continues to mount that there is cross-talk between skin barrier defects and immune responses in patients with atopic dermatitis. Augmentation of the skin barrier with reduction in skin inflammatory responses will likely lead to the most effective intervention in patients with this common skin disease.