Safety and Outcomes of Test Doses for the Evaluation of Adverse Drug Reactions: A 5-Year Retrospective Review

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.

Why Pharmacovigilance of Non-steroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs is Important in India?

BACKGROUND

Non-steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs (NSAIDs) are among the drugs that are most regularly administered to manage inflammation and pain. Over-the-Counter (OTC) NSAIDs are widely accessible, particularly in developing countries like India. This casual approach to using NSAIDs may operate as a magnet for NSAID-related adverse drug reactions (ADRs) among patients.

OBJECTIVES

As patients in India are less informed about the appropriate use of NSAIDs and consumption patttern, adverse drug reactions, and the importance of reporting ADRs, the current study's objective is to promote patient safety by using pharmacovigilance as a tool to educate patients.

METHODS

A targeted literature methodology was utilized to gather the data pertaining to NSAIDs, their ADRs and their pharmacovigilance. Different scientific databases, such as Science Direct, PubMed, Wiley Online Library, Springer, and Google Scholar, along with authentic textbooks, were explored as reference literature.

RESULTS

In general, NSAIDs consumption pattern depends upon the different age groups. Around 1.6 billion tablets of NSAIDs are consumed in India for ailments, such as headaches, arthritis, menstrual cramps, osteoarthritis, back pain, rheumatoid arthritis, gout, osteoporosis, tendinitis, cancer pain and chronic pain. Common ADRs of NSAIDs include nausea, vomiting, headache, gastritis, abdominal pain, and diarrhoea. Also, they can cause renal damage and cardiovascular problems if not consumed in a dose-dependent manner. However, Diclofenac and Ibuprofen have both been linked to depression and dementia. There have been reports of aplastic anaemia, agranulocytosis linked to phenylbutazone, Stevens-Johnson, and Lyell's syndrome linked to isoxicam and piroxicam, as well as the vulnerability of new-borns to Reye's syndrome after aspirin use. Lack of awareness, time constraints and unpredictability, poor training in ADRs identification, etc., are some of the reasons for the under-reporting of ADR of NSAIDs in India.

CONCLUSION

In order to rationally prescribe NSAIDs, it is essential to be aware of probable ADR's and establish prescription guidelines. Prescribers' behaviour can be changed toward excellent prescribing practices by conducting routine prescription assessments dealing with NSAIDs and providing feedback. In the near future, it will be critical to strengthen ADR data management and expand the reach of pharmacovigilance programs, ADR monitoring centers, and healthcare professionals' especially pharmacists' training in rural locations.

Neuromuscular blocking agent re-exposure in a retrospective cohort with neuromuscular blocking agent-associated anaphylaxis

BACKGROUND

Neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) are one of the most common causes of perioperative anaphylaxis. Although skin test positivity may help identify reactive NMBAs, it is unclear whether skin test negativity can guarantee the safety of systemically administered NMBAs.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the real-world safety of alternative NMBAs screened using skin tests in patients with suspected NMBA-induced anaphylaxis.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort of suspected NMBA-induced anaphylaxis were recruited among patients at Seoul National University Hospital from June 2009 to May 2021, and their characteristics and outcomes were assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 47 cases (0.017%) of suspected anaphylaxis occurred in 282,707 patients who received NMBAs. Cardiovascular manifestations were observed in 95.7%, whereas cutaneous findings were observed in 59.6%. Whereas 83% had a history of undergoing general anesthesia, 17% had no history of NMBA use. In skin tests, the overall positivity to any NMBA was 94.6% (81.1% to culprit NMBAs) and the cross-reactivity was 75.7%, which is related to the chemical structural similarity among NMBAs; the cross-reactivity and chemical structure similarity of rocuronium were 85.3% and 0.814, respectively, with vecuronium; this is in contrast to 50% and 0.015 with cisatracurium and 12.5% and 0.208 with succinylcholine. There were 15 patients who underwent subsequent surgery with a skin test-negative NMBA; whereas 80.0% (12/15) safely completed surgery, 20.0% (3/15) experienced hypotension.

CONCLUSION

Similarities in chemical structure may contribute to the cross-reactivity of NMBAs in skin tests. Despite the high negative predictability of skin tests for suspected NMBA-induced anaphylaxis, the potential risk of recurrent anaphylaxis has not been eliminated.

Improving Antibiotic Stewardship for Inpatients with Reported Beta-Lactam Allergies and Limited Access to Penicillin Skin Testing

BACKGROUND

Penicillin allergy is commonly reported, but true allergy is rare. Inpatients with reported beta-lactam allergy are often treated with alternative antibiotics. Penicillin skin testing (PST) is not universally available for inpatients.

METHODS

We designed a four-phase quality improvement project aimed to increase the percentage of inpatients on medical services with reported beta-lactam allergy who safely receive beta-lactam antibiotics at two hospitals with limited access to PST. First, we updated our hospital guideline to allow for cephalosporin graded challenge without antecedent PST. Second, we educated physicians, physician assistants, and nurses about the new guideline and beta-lactam allergy classification and management. Third, we designed a pocket card to reinforce the education. Last, we used antimicrobial stewardship software to screen our daily census to identify opportunities to improve management of patients with reported beta-lactam allergies.

RESULTS

We observed a 29.2% increase in the percentage of patients who received beta-lactam antibiotics (excluding carbapenems) among those with reported beta-lactam allergy, from 42.2% (470/1,115) at baseline to 54.5% (379/696), p < 0.001, during the project period. There was a decrease in the use of alternative antibiotics, no change in hospital-onset Clostridioides difficile cases, and no increase in the number of infectious disease or allergy consults. The number of graded challenges increased during the project period, without any anaphylaxis events.

CONCLUSION

A multiphase quality improvement project aimed to improve management of beta-lactam allergies and access to graded challenges led to an increase in beta-lactam utilization without an increase in anaphylaxis, even with limited access to PST.

Enabling antibiotic allergy evaluations and reintroduction of first-line antibiotics for patients with cystic fibrosis

BACKGROUND

Patients with cystic fibrosis (CF) often have a history of antibiotic adverse drug reactions (ADRs) that pose a barrier to receiving recommended first-line treatment. Targeted antibiotic allergy evaluations are increasingly recognized as an important strategy for optimization of antimicrobial stewardship.

OBJECTIVE

To improve first-line antibiotic use in patients with CF with antibiotic ADRs by streamlining access to antibiotic allergy evaluations and standardizing documentation of plans for antibiotic reintroduction.

METHODS

We incorporated allergy evaluations into a multidisciplinary CF clinic and used telemedicine when allergy evaluations could not be performed during CF clinic. Standard documentation of antibiotic allergy plans was used to enable safe reintroduction of first-line antibiotics by CF providers.

RESULTS

Strategies used in this study allowed 81.3% (26 of 32) of patients with CF to receive allergy evaluations and antibiotic allergy plans for prioritized antibiotics (penicillin, cephalosporin, sulfonamide), with removal of 41.0% (16 of 39) of prioritized antibiotic ADRs. Only 5.1% (2 of 39) of prioritized antibiotic ADRs evaluated required strict avoidance after evaluation. There were 9 patients who received at least 1 prioritized antibiotic, with 66.6% (6 of 9) of these patients given the antibiotic after only 1 allergy evaluation visit. Furthermore, these strategies allowed allergy evaluations of 23 nonprioritized antibiotics to occur, with removal of the ADR in 39.1% (9 of 23) and use of 77.8% (7 of 9) of nonprioritized antibiotics after removal.

CONCLUSION

Incorporating allergy evaluations into a multidisciplinary CF clinic can liberalize first-line antibiotic use in patients with CF. Standard documentation of antibiotic allergy plans allowed antibiotic reintroduction to occur even before complete removal of documented antibiotic ADRs.

Tackling the Patient with Multiple Drug "Allergies": Multiple Drug Intolerance Syndrome

As populations age, the prevalence of reported drug "allergy" increases, often leading to suboptimal care and increased morbidity because of unnecessary avoidance of safe and effective medications. Evaluation by a drug allergy specialist is often warranted when a patient has more than 2 unrelated drug "allergies" listed in the medical record. In this commentary, we clarify and propose standard terminology to use when evaluating patients with multiple drug allergy labels including and more specifically when diagnosing multiple drug intolerance syndrome and the much rarer multiple drug hypersensitivity syndrome. We review epidemiology and key features of multiple drug intolerance syndrome and multiple drug hypersensitivity syndrome. We summarize the methodologic and practical diagnostic workup and management of individuals with MDIS to assist with the accurate delabeling of drug "allergies" in the electronic health record.

Current practice for diagnosing immediate drug hypersensitivity reactions in Korea

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Skin (STs) and drug provocation (DPTs) tests are essential for identifying the culprit drugs causing drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs). Several protocols have been developed for the identification of some culprit drugs, but they are neither thoroughly validated nor standardized. Furthermore, language barriers may impede the exchange of information necessary for test standardization.

METHODS

We searched the Korean literature for articles on drug hypersensitivity published from 1933 to 2016 using the KoreaMed search engine and archives of Korean journals. We reviewed and rated all articles according to the description of STs and DPTs.

RESULTS

Of the 632 articles obtained in our initial search, 34 had adequate descriptions of 15 STs and 22 DPTs. Up to 27 healthy control subjects in STs were enrolled to determine non-irritating concentrations. The concentrations used for intradermal tests were commonly a 1/10 dilution of those used for skin prick tests. The interpretations of the STs were mostly similar among researchers. For DPTs, most procedures were single-arm open-label tests of various drugs. The initial dose ranged from a quarter dose to a single therapeutic dose, depending on the severity of the original hypersensitivity reaction. The interval between doses was usually 30 to 60 minutes, and a positive reaction usually occurred within twice the time of the original reaction.

CONCLUSION

Efforts to distribute information are necessary to standardize protocols and better understand DHRs.

Skin testing and drug challenge in the evaluation of drug hypersensitivity reactions

Immediate hypersensitivity to drugs is characterized by symptoms such as hives, swelling, and wheezing. To prevent a negative impact on care, assessment by an allergist is important. Evaluation requires a clear clinical history, but it is often lacking or vague, which makes a diagnosis difficult. Allergists instead can use skin testing and drug challenge to evaluate drug hypersensitivity reactions, which help the patient and provider understand the causative drug(s) and, more importantly, enables the use of the exonerated drug(s). Although penicillin skin testing is standardized, well described, and widely used, skin testing for most other drugs requires the use of a nonirritating skin testing concentration that can have a low negative predictive value. Drug challenges are the criterion standard for confirming tolerance. The allergist must obtain an in-depth clinical history and then follow with skin testing and/or drug challenges when indicated to determine which drugs can be de-labelled and which should be avoided. In this review, we focused on the evaluation of drug hypersensitivity reactions to antibiotics, perioperative agents, biologics, and chemotherapeutics.

Descriptive analysis of a simplified approach to low-risk drug hypersensitivity reactions

BACKGROUND

Evaluation of drug allergy is intricate because of nonstandardized testing and challenge method variability.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the clinical and epidemiologic characteristics of a large group of patients with suspected drug allergies who underwent 1 or more provocation tests (PT), and to establish whether performing this test in fewer steps is safe and effective.

METHODS

A cross-sectional descriptive study was conducted in patients with suspected drug allergies who underwent a provocation test at the allergy service of Fundación Valle del Lili, Cali, Colombia, from January 2011 to August 2017.

RESULTS

A total of 508 patients underwent 615 PTs; the median age was 34.5 years (range, 1-87 years) and 332 were women (65.3%). The most frequently implicated drugs were nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in 362 patients (58.9%), followed by beta-lactam antibiotics in 170 (27.6%), and non-beta-lactam antibiotics in 21 (3.4%). The most typically described manifestations were cutaneous urticaria in 282 patients (45.8%) and angioedema in 220 (35.7%). Most patients underwent the PT without performing other previous tests, which were done in only 92 patients (18.3%). Skin prick tests and intradermal reaction tests were performed in 81 patients (15%); all results were negative. In 519 patients (84.3%), the PT was performed in 2 steps without a placebo. Of the PTs performed in 2 steps, 492 (94.8%) had negative results. In addition, PT was performed in 195 patients (37.6%) in whom 2 equal doses of the drug was administered; 186 patients (95.4%) had negative results.

CONCLUSION

Performing an open PT (without previous tests) in 2 steps among patients with low-risk drug reactions is safe. However, every case must be analyzed individually in terms of the risk-benefit ratio.

Comparing Direct Challenge to Penicillin Skin Testing for the Outpatient Evaluation of Penicillin Allergy: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Direct challenge (DC) may be a safe and effective alternative to penicillin skin testing (PST) in low-risk patients.

OBJECTIVE

To complete a prospective, randomized, controlled trial comparing PST followed by a challenge to amoxicillin versus a 2-step DC to amoxicillin without preceding skin testing in a predefined low-risk patient population.

METHODS

Penicillin allergy histories were reviewed in patients presenting to an outpatient allergy/immunology practice from April 2018 to August 2018. Patients 5 years or older with a cutaneous-only or unknown reaction (>1 year ago for those aged 5-17 years, >10 years ago for those 18 years or older) were randomized 1:1 to PST or 2-step DC. All children younger than 5 years underwent DC, and patients with extracutaneous reaction histories underwent PST. All groups were monitored 30 minutes after administration of amoxicillin.

RESULTS

Penicillin allergy was reported in 363 of 2465 (14.7%) patients, of which 185 consented to further evaluation. Thirteen patients younger than 5 years underwent DC; all were negative. Thirteen patients with angioedema and/or extracutaneous symptoms underwent PST; 2 of 13 patients had positive PST result. A total of 159 patients were randomized to DC (49.7%) or PST (50.3%). PST result was negative in 70 of 80 (87.5%) patients. All 70 patients had a negative amoxicillin challenge. DC was negative in 76 of 79 (96.2%) patients; positive DC reactions were minor. Average time for patients undergoing PST was 72.7 ± 5.3 minutes and for patients undergoing DC was 66.7 ± 4.8 minutes.

CONCLUSIONS

In low-risk patients, DC provided a safe and effective alternative to PST in delabeling penicillin allergy. Compared with PST, DC may also take less time, cost less money, and lead to fewer penicillin allergy evaluations with false-positive results.

Evaluation and Management of Penicillin Allergy: A Review

IMPORTANCE

β-Lactam antibiotics are among the safest and most effective antibiotics. Many patients report allergies to these drugs that limit their use, resulting in the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics that increase the risk for antimicrobial resistance and adverse events.

OBSERVATIONS

Approximately 10% of the US population has reported allergies to the β-lactam agent penicillin, with higher rates reported by older and hospitalized patients. Although many patients report that they are allergic to penicillin, clinically significant IgE-mediated or T lymphocyte-mediated penicillin hypersensitivity is uncommon (<5%). Currently, the rate of IgE-mediated penicillin allergies is decreasing, potentially due to a decreased use of parenteral penicillins, and because severe anaphylactic reactions to oral amoxicillin are rare. IgE-mediated penicillin allergy wanes over time, with 80% of patients becoming tolerant after a decade. Cross-reactivity between penicillin and cephalosporin drugs occurs in about 2% of cases, less than the 8% reported previously. Some patients have a medical history that suggests they are at a low risk for developing an allergic reaction to penicillin. Low-risk histories include patients having isolated nonallergic symptoms, such as gastrointestinal symptoms, or patients solely with a family history of a penicillin allergy, symptoms of pruritus without rash, or remote (>10 years) unknown reactions without features suggestive of an IgE-mediated reaction. A moderate-risk history includes urticaria or other pruritic rashes and reactions with features of IgE-mediated reactions. A high-risk history includes patients who have had anaphylaxis, positive penicillin skin testing, recurrent penicillin reactions, or hypersensitivities to multiple β-lactam antibiotics. The goals of antimicrobial stewardship are undermined when reported allergy to penicillin leads to the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics that increase the risk for antimicrobial resistance, including increased risk of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus. Broad-spectrum antimicrobial agents also increase the risk of developing Clostridium difficile (also known as Clostridioides difficile) infection. Direct amoxicillin challenge is appropriate for patients with low-risk allergy histories. Moderate-risk patients can be evaluated with penicillin skin testing, which carries a negative predictive value that exceeds 95% and approaches 100% when combined with amoxicillin challenge. Clinicians performing penicillin allergy evaluation need to identify what methods are supported by their available resources.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Many patients report they are allergic to penicillin but few have clinically significant reactions. Evaluation of penicillin allergy before deciding not to use penicillin or other β-lactam antibiotics is an important tool for antimicrobial stewardship.

Antibiotic allergy

Antibiotics are the commonest cause of life-threatening immune-mediated drug reactions that are considered off-target, including anaphylaxis, and organ-specific and severe cutaneous adverse reactions. However, many antibiotic reactions documented as allergies were unknown or not remembered by the patient, cutaneous reactions unrelated to drug hypersensitivity, drug-infection interactions, or drug intolerances. Although such reactions pose negligible risk to patients, they currently represent a global threat to public health. Antibiotic allergy labels result in displacement of first-line therapies for antibiotic prophylaxis and treatment. A penicillin allergy label, in particular, is associated with increased use of broad-spectrum and non-β-lactam antibiotics, which results in increased adverse events and antibiotic resistance. Most patients labelled as allergic to penicillins are not allergic when appropriately stratified for risk, tested, and re-challenged. Given the public health importance of penicillin allergy, this Review provides a global update on antibiotic allergy epidemiology, classification, mechanisms, and management.

Addressing Inpatient Beta-Lactam Allergies: A Multihospital Implementation

Addressing inaccurate penicillin allergies is encouraged as part of antibiotic stewardship in the inpatient setting. However, implementing interventions targeted at the 10% to 15% of inpatients reporting a previous penicillin allergy can pose substantial logistic challenges. We implemented a computerized guideline for patients with reported beta-lactam allergy at 5 hospitals within a single health care system in the Boston area. In this article, we describe our implementation roadmap, including both successes achieved and challenges faced. We explain key implementation steps, including assembling a team, stakeholder engagement, developing or selecting an approach, spreading the change, establishing measures, and measuring impact. The objective was to detail the lessons learned while empowering others to be part of this important, multidisciplinary work to improve the care of patients with reported beta-lactam allergies.

Diagnosing and managing patients with drug hypersensitivity

INTRODUCTION

Diagnosing and managing drug hypersensitivity is challenging because there are no clear limits between different types of drug reactions. Distinguishing between type A (predictable) and type B (hypersensitivity) reactions when a drug is introduced on the market is not easy. When many people use a drug, adverse reactions can occur, conditioned by diverse genetic profiles, viral infections or concomitant therapy. Occasionally the only tool clinicians have on which to base the diagnosis is the clinical history. Skins tests or in vitro tests sometimes have low sensitivity or are unavailable, and drug provocation tests may be dangerous or strictly forbidden in case of severe cutaneous reactions. Areas covered: This paper reviews the diagnosis and management of the two main types of immunological reactions: IgE-mediated immediate drug hypersensitivity reactions (IDHRs) and non-immediate drug hypersensitivity reactions (NIDHRs). Expert commentary: Although Europe and the United States use different diagnostic methods, patients with history of drug hypersensitivity must avoid the suspicious drug, and clinicians must assess tolerance to safe alternatives under medical surveillance. Sometimes desensitization may be required. There is a consensus about the need to perform genetic testing for specific drugs and give patients proper documentation to prevent future exposure to culprit drugs.

A clinical decision-making algorithm for penicillin allergy

BACKGROUND

About 10% of subjects report suspected penicillin allergy, but 85-90% of these patients are not truly allergic and could safely receive beta-lactam antibiotics Objective: To design and validate a clinical decision-making algorithm, based on anamnesis (chronology, severity, and duration of the suspected allergic reactions) and reaching a 100% sensitivity and negative predictive value, to assess allergy risk related to a penicillin prescription in general practise.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

All patients were included prospectively and explorated based on ENDA/EAACI recommendations. Results of penicillin allergy work-up (gold standard) were compared with results of the algorithm.

RESULTS

Allergological work-up diagnosed penicillin hypersensitivity in 41/259 patients (15.8%) [95% CI: 11.5-20.3]. Three of these patients were diagnosed as having immediate-type hypersensitivity to penicillin, but had been misdiagnosed as low risk patients using the clinical algorithm. Thus, the sensitivity and negative predictive value of the algorithm were 92.7% [95% CI: 80.1-98.5] and 96.3% [95% CI: 89.6-99.2], respectively, and the probability that a patient with true penicillin allergy had been misclassified was 3.7% [95% CI: 0.8-10.4].

CONCLUSIONS

Although the risk of misclassification is low, we cannot recommend the use of this algorithm in general practice. However, the algorithm can be useful in emergency situations in hospital settings. Key messages True penicillin allergy is considerably lower than alleged penicillin allergy (15.8%; 41 of the 259 patients with suspected penicillin allergy). A clinical algorithm based on the patient's clinical history of the supposed allergic event to penicillin misclassified 3/41 (3.7%) truly allergic patients.

The Cost of Penicillin Allergy Evaluation

BACKGROUND

Unverified penicillin allergy leads to adverse downstream clinical and economic sequelae. Penicillin allergy evaluation can be used to identify true, IgE-mediated allergy.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the cost of penicillin allergy evaluation using time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC).

METHODS

We implemented TDABC throughout the care pathway for 30 outpatients presenting for penicillin allergy evaluation. The base-case evaluation included penicillin skin testing and a 1-step amoxicillin drug challenge, performed by an allergist. We varied assumptions about the provider type, clinical setting, procedure type, and personnel timing.

RESULTS

The base-case penicillin allergy evaluation costs $220 in 2016 US dollars: $98 for personnel, $119 for consumables, and $3 for space. In sensitivity analyses, lower cost estimates were achieved when only a drug challenge was performed (ie, no skin test, $84) and a nurse practitioner provider was used ($170). Adjusting for the probability of anaphylaxis did not result in a changed estimate ($220); although other analyses led to modest changes in the TDABC estimate ($214-$246), higher estimates were identified with changing to a low-demand practice setting ($268), a 50% increase in personnel times ($269), and including clinician documentation time ($288). In a least/most costly scenario analyses, the lowest TDABC estimate was $40 and the highest was $537.

CONCLUSIONS

Using TDABC, penicillin allergy evaluation costs $220; even with varied assumptions adjusting for operational challenges, clinical setting, and expanded testing, penicillin allergy evaluation still costs only about $540. This modest investment may be offset for patients treated with costly alternative antibiotics that also may result in adverse consequences.

Pro and Contra: Provocation Tests in Drug Hypersensitivity

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

Epidemiology, Mechanisms, and Diagnosis of Drug-Induced Anaphylaxis

Anaphylaxis is an acute, life-threatening, multisystem syndrome resulting from the sudden release of mediators by mast cells and basophils. Although anaphylaxis is often under-communicated and thus underestimated, its incidence appears to have risen over recent decades. Drugs are among the most common triggers in adults, being analgesics and antibiotics the most common causal agents. Anaphylaxis can be caused by immunologic or non-immunologic mechanisms. Immunologic anaphylaxis can be mediated by IgE-dependent or -independent pathways. The former involves activation of Th2 cells and the cross-linking of two or more specific IgE (sIgE) antibodies on the surface of mast cells or basophils. The IgE-independent mechanism can be mediated by IgG, involving the release of platelet-activating factor, and/or complement activation. Non-immunological anaphylaxis can occur through the direct stimulation of mast cell degranulation by some drugs, inducing histamine release and leading to anaphylactic symptoms. Work-up of a suspected drug-induced anaphylaxis should include clinical history; however, this can be unreliable, and skin tests should also be used if available and validated. Drug provocation testing is not recommended due to the risk of inducing a harmful reaction. In vitro testing can help to confirm anaphylaxis by analyzing the release of mediators such as tryptase or histamine by mast cells. When immunologic mechanisms are suspected, serum-sIgE quantification or the use of the basophil activation test can help confirm the culprit drug. In this review, we will discuss multiple aspects of drug-induced anaphylaxis, including epidemiology, mechanisms, and diagnosis.

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.

Tackling inpatient penicillin allergies: Assessing tools for antimicrobial stewardship

BACKGROUND

Reported penicillin allergy rarely reflects penicillin intolerance. Failure to address inpatient penicillin allergies results in more broad-spectrum antibiotic use, treatment failures, and adverse drug events.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to determine the optimal approach to penicillin allergies among medical inpatients.

METHODS

We evaluated internal medicine inpatients reporting penicillin allergy in 3 periods: (1) standard of care (SOC), (2) penicillin skin testing (ST), and (3) computerized guideline application with decision support (APP). The primary outcome was use of a penicillin or cephalosporin, comparing interventions to SOC using multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

There were 625 patients: SOC, 148; ST, 278; and APP, 199. Of 278 ST patients, 179 (64%) were skin test eligible; 43 (24%) received testing and none were allergic. In the APP period, there were 292 unique Web site views; 112 users (38%) completed clinical decision support. Although ST period patients did not have increased odds of penicillin or cephalosporin use overall (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.3; 95% CI, 0.8-2.0), we observed significant increased odds of penicillin or cephalosporin use overall in the APP period (aOR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.1-2.9) and in a per-protocol analysis of the skin tested subset (aOR, 5.7; 95% CI, 2.6-12.5).

CONCLUSIONS

Both APP and ST-when completed-increased the use of penicillin and cephalosporin antibiotics among inpatients reporting penicillin allergy. While the skin tested subset showed an almost 6-fold impact, the computerized guideline significantly increased penicillin or cephalosporin use overall nearly 2-fold and was readily implemented.

Identifying Allergic Drug Reactions Through Placebo-Controlled Graded Challenges

BACKGROUND

Graded challenges are performed to exclude hypersensitivity reactions in patients with a low likelihood of drug allergy. Literature regarding optimal protocols with a defined number of steps and use of placebo is lacking.

OBJECTIVE

To identify allergic drug reactions (ADRs) through a 3-step protocol composed of placebo followed by a 2-step graded drug challenge.

METHODS

We performed a 5-year retrospective chart review of all patients with historical ADRs who underwent single-blind, placebo-controlled graded drug challenges between October 2010 and November 2015 at an outpatient drug allergy clinic. Patients' demographic characteristics and description of historical reaction were obtained. Outcomes of challenges to drug versus placebo were compared by drug class.

RESULTS

Two hundred twenty-nine patients underwent at least 1 single-blind placebo-controlled graded challenge. The most commonly challenged drug class was beta-lactams (70.8%) followed by nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (17.5%). The reaction rate to drug and placebo was similar during beta-lactam challenges (9.4% vs 8.2%; P = .9) and during nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug challenges (14% vs 7%, P = .5), respectively. Only 10 patients (4.4%) had objective findings during drug challenges. Patients who reacted to placebo before beta-lactam challenges had an increased number of drug allergies (4.3 ± 1.0) compared with nonreactors (2.4 ± 0.1) and to beta-lactam reactors (3.3 ± 0.7) (P = .002). All placebo reactors were female (20 of 183 vs 0 of 46 males; P = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

Two-step graded challenges are safe in appropriately selected patients with a low risk of reaction. Placebo should be considered to reduce false-positive results, especially in females and in patients with multiple drug allergies.

Skin testing and drug challenge outcomes in antibiotic-allergic patients with immediate-type hypersensitivity

BACKGROUND

The evaluation of antibiotic immediate-type hypersensitivity is intricate because of nonstandardized skin testing and challenge method variability.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the safety outcomes and risk factors for antibiotic challenge reactions in patients reporting a history of antibiotic immediate-type hypersensitivity.

METHODS

A 5-year retrospective review of patients evaluated for immediate-type antibiotic allergy was conducted. Data analyzed included patient demographics, index reaction details, and outcomes of skin testing and challenges, classified as single-step or multistep.

RESULTS

Antibiotic hypersensitivity history was identified in 211 patients: 78% to penicillins, 10% to fluoroquinolones, 7.6% to cephalosporins, and 3.8% to carbapenems. In total, 179 patients completed the challenges (median age 67 years, range 50-76 years, 56% women), and compared with nonchallenged patients, they reported nonanaphylactic (P < .001) and remote index (P = .003) reactions. Sixteen patients (8.9%) experienced challenge reactions (5 of 28 for single-step challenge, 11 of 151 for multistep challenge), and 11 of these patients had negative skin testing results before the challenge. Challenge-reactive patients were significantly younger (P = .007), more often women (P = .036), and had additional reported antibiotic allergies (P = .005). No correlation was detected between the reported index and observed challenge reaction severities (κ = -0.05, 95% confidence interval -0.34 to 0.24). Anaphylactic rates were similar during single-step and multistep challenges (3.6% vs 3.3%).

CONCLUSION

In the present population, younger women with multiple reported antibiotic allergies were at greatest risk for challenge reactions. Negative skin testing results did not exclude reactions, and index severity was not predictive of challenge outcome. The multistep and full-dose methods demonstrated a comparable reaction risk for anaphylaxis.

Penicillin allergy: optimizing diagnostic protocols, public health implications, and future research needs

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Unverified penicillin allergy is being increasingly recognized as a public health concern. The ideal protocol for verifying true clinically significant IgE-mediated penicillin allergy needs to use only commercially available materials, be well tolerated and easy to perform in both the inpatient and outpatient settings, and minimize false-positive determinations. This review concentrates on articles published in 2013 and 2014 that present new data relating to the diagnosis and management of penicillin allergy.

RECENT FINDINGS

Penicillin allergy can be safely evaluated at this time, in patients with an appropriate clinical history of penicillin allergy, using only penicilloyl-poly-lysine and native penicillin G as skin test reagents, if an oral challenge with amoxicillin 250 mg, followed by 1 h of observation, is given to all skin test negative individuals.

SUMMARY

Millions of individuals falsely labeled with penicillin allergy need to be evaluated to safely allow them to use penicillin-class antibiotics and avoid morbidity associated with penicillin avoidance. Further research is needed to determine optimal protocol(s). There will still be a 1-2% rate of adverse reactions reported with all future therapeutic penicillin-class antibiotic use, even with optimal methods used to determine acute penicillin tolerance. Only a small minority of these new reactions will be IgE-mediated.

Impact of a clinical guideline for prescribing antibiotics to inpatients reporting penicillin or cephalosporin allergy

BACKGROUND

Self-reported penicillin allergy infrequently reflects an inability to tolerate penicillins. Inpatients reporting penicillin allergy receive alternative antibiotics that might be broader spectrum, more toxic, or less effective.

OBJECTIVE

To develop and assess a clinical guideline for the general inpatient provider that directs taking a history and prescribing antibiotics for patients with penicillin or cephalosporin allergy.

METHODS

A guideline was implemented to assist providers with assessing allergy history and prescribing antibiotics for patients with reported penicillin or cephalosporin allergy. The guideline used a standard 2-step graded challenge or test dose. A quasi-experimental study was performed to assess safety, feasibility, and impact on antibiotic use by comparing treatment 21 months before guideline implementation with 12 months after guideline implementation.

RESULTS

Significantly more test doses to β-lactam antibiotics were performed monthly after vs before guideline implementation (median 14.5, interquartile range 13-16.25, vs 2, interquartile range 1-3.25, P < .001). Seven adverse drug reactions occurred during guideline-driven test doses, with no significant difference in rate (3.9% vs 6.1%, P = .44) or severity (P > .5) between periods. Guideline-driven test doses decreased alternative antimicrobial therapy after the test dose, including vancomycin (68.3% vs 37.2%, P < .001), aztreonam (11.5% vs 0.5%, P < .001), aminoglycosides (6.0% vs 1.1%, P = .004), and fluoro quinolones (15.3% vs 3.3%, P < .001).

CONCLUSION

The implementation of an inpatient antibiotic prescribing guideline for patients with penicillin or cephalosporin allergy was associated with an almost 7-fold increase in the number of test doses to β-lactams without increased adverse drug reactions. Patients assessed with guideline-driven test doses were observed to have significantly decreased alternative antibiotic exposure.

Improving Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Methicillin-Sensitive Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia and Reported Penicillin Allergy

BACKGROUND

Methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) bacteremia is a morbid infection. First-line MSSA therapies (nafcillin, oxacillin, cefazolin) are generally avoided in the 10% of patients reporting penicillin (PCN) allergy, but most of these patients are not truly allergic. We used a decision tree with sensitivity analyses to determine the optimal evaluation and treatment for patients with MSSA bacteremia and reported PCN allergy.

METHODS

Our model simulates 3 strategies: (1) no allergy evaluation, give vancomycin (Vanc); (2) allergy history-guided treatment: if history excludes anaphylactic features, give cefazolin (Hx-Cefaz); and (3) complete allergy evaluation with history-appropriate PCN skin testing: if skin test negative, give cefazolin (ST-Cefaz). Model outcomes included 12-week MSSA cure, recurrence, and death; allergic reactions including major, minor, and potentially iatrogenic; and adverse drug reactions.

RESULTS

Vanc results in the fewest patients achieving MSSA cure and the highest rate of recurrence (67.3%/14.8% vs 83.4%/9.3% for Hx-Cefaz and 84.5%/8.9% for ST-Cefaz) as well as the greatest frequency of allergic reactions (3.0% vs 2.4% for Hx-Cefaz and 1.7% for ST-Cefaz) and highest rates of adverse drug reactions (5.2% vs 4.6% for Hx-Cefaz and 4.7% for ST-Cefaz). Even in a "best case for Vanc" scenario, Vanc yields the poorest outcomes. ST-Cefaz is preferred to Hx-Cefaz although sensitive to input variations.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with MSSA bacteremia and a reported PCN allergy should have the allergy addressed for optimal treatment. Full allergy evaluation with skin testing seems to be preferred, although more data are needed.

Advances in allergic skin disease, anaphylaxis, and hypersensitivity reactions to foods, drugs, and insects in 2014

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 2014. Studies on food allergy suggest worrisomely high rates of peanut allergy and food-induced anaphylaxis-related hospitalizations. Evidence is mounting to support the theory that environmental exposure to peanut, such as in house dust, especially with an impaired skin barrier attributed to atopic dermatitis (AD) and loss of function mutations in the filaggrin gene, is a risk factor for sensitization and allergy. Diagnostic tests are improving, with early studies suggesting the possibility of developing novel cellular tests with increased diagnostic utility. Treatment trials continue to show the promise and limitations of oral immunotherapy, and mechanistic studies are elucidating pathways that might define the degree of efficacy of this treatment. Studies have also provided insights into the prevalence and characteristics of anaphylaxis and insect venom allergy, such as suggesting that baseline platelet-activating factor acetylhydrolase activity levels are related to the severity of reactions. Advances in drug allergy include identification of HLA associations for penicillin allergy and a microRNA biomarker/mechanism for toxic epidermal necrolysis. Research identifying critical events leading to skin barrier dysfunction and the polarized immune pathways that drive AD have led to new therapeutic approaches in the prevention and management of AD.

Anaphylaxis to drugs

Drug-induced anaphylaxis is a common cause of anaphylaxis and a leading cause of fatal anaphylaxis. Antibiotics, radiocontrast, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are commonly implicated drugs. Vocal cord dysfunction can mimic anaphylaxis and is often overlooked. β-Lactams are a common cause of anaphylaxis; however, skin testing and drug challenge can usually determine tolerability of other classes of β-lactams. Nonionic contrast agents cause anaphylaxis less frequently than ionic contrast, and immunoglobulin E-mediated mechanisms may have a role in some of these reactions. Skin testing with radiocontrast may have a role in evaluating patients with anaphylaxis to nonionic contrast.

Ceftaroline desensitization procedure in a pregnant patient with multiple drug allergies

Validated skin testing is lacking for many drugs, including ceftaroline. The cross-reactivity between ceftaroline and other β-lactam antibiotics is unknown. We report a case of a pregnant patient with cystic fibrosis and multiple drug allergies who required ceftaroline for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus pneumonia and underwent an uncomplicated empiric desensitization procedure.