Comprehensive Allergy Evaluation Is Useful in the Subsequent Care of Patients with Drug Hypersensitivity Reactions During Anesthesia

A US-Based Multicenter Retrospective Report of Perioperative Anaphylaxis, 2010-2021

BACKGROUND

US-based perioperative anaphylaxis (POA) studies are limited to single-center experiences. A recent report found that a serum acute tryptase (sAT) >9.8 ng/mL or mast cell activation (MCA) can predict POA causal agent identification. Urinary mast cell mediator metabolites (uMC) have not been studied in POA.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the epidemiologic data of POA, to determine if sAT or MCA can predict suspected causal agent identification, and to evaluate uMC utility in POA.

METHODS

This study is a retrospective multicenter review of POA cases that were subcategorized by suspected causal agent identification status. sAT, MCA (defined as sAT >2 + 1.2 × serum baseline tryptase), and uMC (N-methylhistamine [N-MH], 11β-prostaglandin-F2α [11β-PGF2α], leukotriene E4 [LTE4]) were recorded.

RESULTS

Of 100 patients (mean age 52 [standard deviation 17] years, 94% adult, 50% female, 90% White, and 2% Hispanic) with POA, 73% had an sAT available, 41% had MCA, 16% had uMC available, and 50% had an identifiable suspected cause. POA cases with an identifiable suspected cause had a positive MCA status (100% vs 78%; P = .01) compared with POA with an unidentifiable cause. An elevated median sAT did not predict causal agent identification. Positive uMC were not associated with suspected causal agent identification during POA. Patients with positive uMC had a higher median sAT (30 vs 6.45 ng/mL; P = .001) and MCA status (96% vs 12%; P = .001) compared with negative uMC patients. Patients with POA had an elevated acute/baseline uMC ratios: 11β-PGF2α ratio > 1.6, N-MH ratio >1.7, and LTE4 ratio >1.8.

CONCLUSIONS

The presence of MCA in POA is associated with suspected causal agent identification. Positive uMC possibly correlate with a higher sAT level and MCA status but require further study. The authors suggest applying an acute/baseline uMC ratio (11β-PGF2α ratio >1.6, N-MH ratio >1.7, and LTE4 ratio >1.87) in patients with POA for MCA when a tryptase level is inconclusive during POA evaluations.

Anaphylaxis: A 2023 practice parameter update

This practice parameter update focuses on 7 areas in which there are new evidence and new recommendations. Diagnostic criteria for anaphylaxis have been revised, and patterns of anaphylaxis are defined. Measurement of serum tryptase is important for diagnosis of anaphylaxis and to identify underlying mast cell disorders. In infants and toddlers, age-specific symptoms may differ from older children and adults, patient age is not correlated with reaction severity, and anaphylaxis is unlikely to be the initial reaction to an allergen on first exposure. Different community settings for anaphylaxis require specific measures for prevention and treatment of anaphylaxis. Optimal prescribing and use of epinephrine autoinjector devices require specific counseling and training of patients and caregivers, including when and how to administer the epinephrine autoinjector and whether and when to call 911. If epinephrine is used promptly, immediate activation of emergency medical services may not be required if the patient experiences a prompt, complete, and durable response. For most medical indications, the risk of stopping or changing beta-blocker or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor medication may exceed the risk of more severe anaphylaxis if the medication is continued, especially in patients with insect sting anaphylaxis. Evaluation for mastocytosis, including a bone marrow biopsy, should be considered for adult patients with severe insect sting anaphylaxis or recurrent idiopathic anaphylaxis. After perioperative anaphylaxis, repeat anesthesia may proceed in the context of shared decision-making and based on the history and results of diagnostic evaluation with skin tests or in vitro tests when available, and supervised challenge when necessary.

United States Drug Allergy Registry (USDAR) grading scale for immediate drug reactions

BACKGROUND

There is no accepted grading system classifying the severity of immediate reactions to drugs.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this article is to present a proposed grading system developed through the consensus of drug allergy experts from the United States Drug Allergy Registry (USDAR) Consortium.

METHODS

The USDAR investigators sought to develop a consensus severity grading system for immediate drug reactions that is applicable to clinical care and research.

RESULTS

The USDAR grading scale scores severity levels on a scale of 0 to 4. A grade of no reaction (NR) is used for patients who undergo challenge without any symptoms or signs, and it would confirm a negative challenge result. A grade 0 reaction is indicative of primarily subjective complaints that are commonly seen with both historical drug reactions and during drug challenges, and it would suggest a low likelihood of a true drug allergic reaction. Grades 1 to 4 meet the criteria for a positive challenge result and may be considered indicative of a drug allergy. Grade 1 reactions are suggestive of a potential immediate drug reaction with mild symptoms. Grade 2 reactions are more likely to be immediate drug reactions of moderate severity. Grade 3 reactions have features suggestive of a severe allergic reaction, whereas grade 4 reactions are life-threatening reactions such as anaphylactic shock and fatal anaphylaxis.

CONCLUSION

This proposed grading schema for immediate drug reactions improves on prior schemata by being developed specifically for immediate drug reactions and being easy to implement in clinical and research practice.

Drug Allergy in Women

Across all settings, women self-report more drug allergies than do men. Although there is epidemiologic evidence of increased drug allergy labeling in postpubertal females, the evidence base for female sex as a risk factor for true immune-mediated drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs), particularly in fatal drug-induced anaphylaxis, is low. A focus on the known immunologic mechanisms described in immediate and delayed DHR, layered on known hormonal and genetic sex differences that drive other immune-mediated diseases, could be the key to understanding biological sex variations in DHR. Particular conditions that highlight the impact of drug allergy in women include (1) pregnancy, in which a drug allergy label is associated with increased maternal and fetal complications; (2) multiple drug intolerance syndrome, associated with anxiety and depression; and (3) female-predominant autoimmune medical conditions in the context of mislabeling of the drug allergy or increased underlying risk. In this review, we describe the importance of drug allergy in the female population, mainly focusing on the epidemiology and risk, the mechanisms, and the associated conditions and psychosocial factors. By performing a detailed analysis of the current literature, we provide focused conclusions and identify existing knowledge gaps that should be prioritized for future research.

A quarter of a century fundamental and translational research in perioperative hypersensitivity and anaphylaxis at the Antwerp university hospital, a Belgian Centre of Excellence of the World Allergy Organization

Perioperative hypersensitivity constitutes an important health issue, with potential dramatic consequences of diagnostic mistakes. However, safe and correct diagnosis is not always straightforward, mainly because of the application of incorrect nomenclature, absence of easy accessible in-vitro/ex-vivo tests and uncertainties associated with the non-irritating skin test concentrations. In this editorial we summarize the time line, seminal findings, and major realizations of 25 years of research on the mechanisms, diagnosis, and management of perioperative hypersensitivity.

The Nonirritating Concentrations of Neuromuscular Blocking Agents and Related Compounds

BACKGROUND

Skin testing (ST) concentrations of neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs), NMBA-reversal agents, and the sugammadex-rocuronium inclusion complex (S-R-Cx) vary widely among reports.

OBJECTIVE

To determine maximal ST nonirritant concentrations (NICs) of NMBAs (cisatracurium, rocuronium, succinylcholine, and vecuronium), NMBA-reversal agents (neostigmine and sugammadex), and S-R-Cx in NMBA-tolerant and NMBA-naïve participants.

METHODS

A single-center, prospective study between October 2019 and November 2021 of adult participants with or without a planned surgical procedure. The reference standard was tolerance of medication tested during a procedure (NMBA-tolerant group) before ST. Participants received skin prick testing (SPT) and intradermal test (IDT) injections at 5-7 increasing concentrations of 1 or more medications. All medications were reconstituted according to package insert instructions and diluted with 0.9% saline. A concentration was considered irritant when more than 5% of participants had a positive test per ST positivity criteria (wheal ≥3 mm than initial wheal and associated erythema of the same size or greater than wheal). We also compared our results with current guidelines.

RESULTS

A total of 187 participants (78% NMBA-tolerant) underwent 7812 skin tests. All undiluted SPT concentrations were nonirritant. We found the following maximal IDT NICs (mg/mL): cisatracurium (0.02), rocuronium (0.05), succinylcholine (0.8), vecuronium (0.01), neostigmine (0.2), sugammadex (50), and S-R-Cx (sugammadex 7.14 + rocuronium 2).

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that SPT may be performed with undiluted stock concentrations. We confirm maximal IDT NICs for cisatracurium and rocuronium. We also propose that currently recommended maximal IDT NICs of succinylcholine, neostigmine, sugammadex, and S-R-Cx could be increased, whereas the maximal IDT NIC of vecuronium could be decreased compared with current guidelines and prior reports.

Penicillin Allergy and Perioperative Anaphylaxis

Penicillin allergy is the most commonly reported drug allergy, while perioperative anaphylaxis is overall rare. This review covers the epidemiology of both penicillin allergy and perioperative anaphylaxis both separately and taken together. Considerations regarding anaphylaxis to penicillin during pregnancy are also discussed, since penicillin is the drug of choice for Group B Streptococcus prophylaxis. The minimal cross reactivity between penicillins and cephalosporins is addressed, since the vast majority of patients with a penicillin allergy label can receive perioperative cephalosporins. The management of the patient who has experienced perioperative anaphylaxis, including the importance of allergy referral is covered. Approaches to pre-operative penicillin allergy evaluations and opportunities for education are highlighted.

Demystifying α-gal syndrome: identification and risk management in the perioperative setting

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

α-Gal syndrome is among a vexing perioperative consideration for anesthesiologists. Commonly referred to as 'red meat allergy', α-Gal syndrome is precipitated by a lone star tick bite resulting in the formation of immunoglobulin E (IgE) antibodies against the tick salivary glycoproteins and noncatarrhine mammalian tissue.

RECENT FINDINGS

Up to 20% of the population in the southeastern United States may test positive for IgE antibodies to α-Gal. Increasingly, recognition of α-Gal syndrome as an immune response to red meat consumption and certain drugs, many of which may be administered within the perioperative period, has led to greater awareness of the insidious nature of its presentation - from mild urticaria and gastrointestinal symptoms to severe anaphylaxis.

SUMMARY

With the increasing prevalence and identification of α-Gal syndrome, a safe and tailored perioperative process is needed to integrate a pathway that involves multidisciplinary communication, robust information sharing platform, and a structured peri-procedure management.

Perioperative Anaphylaxis

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

Diagnostic 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.

Prevention of Drug Hypersensitivity Reactions: Prescreening and Premedication

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

Incidence and risk factors for near-fatal and fatal outcomes after perioperative and periprocedural anaphylaxis in the USA, 2005-2014

BACKGROUND

The incidence of fatal and near-fatal outcomes after perioperative anaphylaxis is unknown in the USA. Previously identified risk factors of neuromuscular-blocker-induced fatal perioperative anaphylaxis include male sex, obesity, and use of beta blockers. We examined the incidence of fatal and near-fatal outcomes after perioperative anaphylaxis in the USA and the underlying risk factors using a large national database.

METHODS

Using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample from 2005 to 2014, we identified cases of fatal and near-fatal perioperative anaphylaxis, defined as perioperative anaphylaxis cases complicated by respiratory or cardiac arrest, using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes.

RESULTS

Amongst 5223 perioperative anaphylaxis cases, the proportion of near-fatal or fatal cases attributable to perioperative anaphylaxis was 7.0% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 6.2-7.7), with near-fatal perioperative anaphylaxis cases accounting for 5.0% (95% CI: 4.4-5.6%) and fatal cases accounting for 2.0% (95% CI: 1.5-2.5%) of cases overall. Thus, the incidence of fatal or near-fatal perioperative anaphylaxis is 1.26 in 100 000 procedures. Risk factors for fatal or near-fatal perioperative anaphylaxis include age (≥65 yr); undergoing a cardiac procedure; and comorbid conditions of weight loss, non-metastatic solid tumours, metastatic cancer, paralysis, coagulopathy, renal failure, congestive heart failure, fluid and electrolyte disorder, and neurological disorders. Individuals with near-fatal or fatal perioperative anaphylaxis reactions had increased lengths of stay and hospital costs compared with controls.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of fatal or near-fatal perioperative anaphylaxis in the USA was 1.26 in 100 000 procedures. Risk factors for fatal or near-fatal outcomes include older age, cardiac procedures, and specific comorbidities.

Perioperative Anaphylaxis: Evaluation and Management

Perioperative anaphylaxis (PA) is a rare but life-threatening condition that poses diagnostic and management challenges in the operating room. The incidence of severe perioperative reactions is estimated to be approximately 1:7000-10,000. Management involves both immediate stabilization of the patient and identifying the culprit agent. Identification is essential to prevent recurrence of the event in subsequent surgeries and to avoid unnecessary labeling of drug allergy. Identifying all possible exposures including medications, disinfectants, latex, and dyes and choosing the appropriate tests are essential for proper evaluation. To identify the culprit, primary testing modalities include tryptase at the time of the reaction with subsequent levels and skin testing with nonirritating concentrations to the medications and substances utilized during the procedure and those potentially used as alternates. This strategy provides guidance for future surgeries and procedures. Close collaboration between the allergy, anesthesiology, and surgery teams is essential for appropriate management of these patients at the time of the reaction, during the post event evaluation and in preparation for subsequent surgeries.

Antimicrobial anaphylaxis: the changing face of severe antimicrobial allergy

OBJECTIVES

The epidemiology, clinical characteristics and outcomes of antimicrobial-associated anaphylaxis remain ill-defined. We sought to examine antimicrobial anaphylaxis with regard to: (i) the frequency of implicated antimicrobials; (ii) attributable mortality; and (iii) referral for definitive allergy assessment.

METHODS

This was conducted through a national retrospective multicentre cohort study at five Australian tertiary hospitals (January 2010 to December 2015). Cases of antimicrobial anaphylaxis were identified from ICD-10 coding and adverse drug reaction committee databases.

RESULTS

There were 293 participants meeting the case definition of antimicrobial anaphylaxis and 310 antimicrobial anaphylaxis episodes. Of 336 implicated antimicrobials, aminopenicillins (62/336, 18.5%) and aminocephalosporins (57/336, 17%) were implicated most frequently. ICU admission occurred in 43/310 (13.9%) episodes; however, attributable mortality was low (3/310, 1%). The rate of anaphylaxis to IV antibiotics was 3.5 (95% CI=2.9-4.3) per 100 000 DDDs and the rate of hospital-acquired anaphylaxis was 1.9 (95% CI=2.1-3.3) per 100 000 occupied bed-days. We observed overall low rates of hospital discharge documentation (222/310, 71.6%) and follow-up by specialist allergy services (73/310, 23.5%), which may compromise medication safety and antimicrobial prescribing in future.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated that a high proportion of severe immediate hypersensitivity reactions presenting or acquired in Australian hospitals are secondary to aminopenicillins and aminocephalosporins. Overall rates of hospital-acquired anaphylaxis, predominantly secondary to cephalosporins, are low, and also associated with low inpatient mortality.

Cutaneous Mastocytosis in Childhood-Update from the Literature

Mastocytosis (M) represents a systemic pathology characterized by increased accumulation and clonal proliferation of mast cells in the skin and/or different organs. Broadly, M is classified into two categories: Cutaneous mastocytosis (CM) and systemic mastocytosis (SM). In children, CM is the most frequent form. Unfortunately, pathogenesis is still unclear. It is thought that genetic factors are involved, but further studies are necessary. As for features of CM, the lesions differ in clinical forms. The most important fact is evaluating a pediatric patient with CM. It must comprise laboratory exams (with baseline dosing of total serum tryptase), a skin biopsy (with a pathological exam and, if the diagnosis is unclear, immunohistochemical tests), and a complete clinical evaluation. It is also defining to distinguish between CM and other diseases with cutaneous involvement. As for the management of CM in children, the first intervention implies eliminating trigger factors. The available cures are oral H1 and/or H2 antihistamines, oral cromolyn sodium, oral methoxypsoralen therapy with long-wave psoralen plus ultraviolet A radiation, potent dermatocorticoid, and calcineurin inhibitors. In children, the prognosis of CM is excellent, especially if the disease's onset is in the first or second years of life.

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

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

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

RECENT FINDINGS

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

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.

Perioperative Allergic Reactions: Allergy Assessment and Subsequent Anesthesia

BACKGROUND

Evidence-based guidelines are needed in the United States to improve evaluation of perioperative allergic reactions including recommendations for subsequent anesthesia.

OBJECTIVE

To identify causative agent(s) and evaluate patients' tolerability of subsequent anesthesia in patients evaluated by Allergy/Immunology (A/I) at Massachusetts General Hospital.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of patients referred to the outpatient A/I clinic for perioperative allergic reactions between October 2003 and May 2017. Patient demographics, atopic history, and prior adverse drug reactions were reviewed. Patients underwent a comprehensive evaluation with testing including skin testing (ST), drug challenges (when appropriate), tryptase level measurement, and specific IgE to latex measurement. Tolerance of subsequent procedures requiring anesthesia was assessed.

RESULTS

Of 123 patients referred, 74 (60%) were female and the mean age was 46 (±18) years. At least 1 causative agent was identified in 28 patients (24%, n = 28 of 118). Seventeen of 28 (61%) patients were ST positive to an antibiotic, including 13 (46%) positive to cefazolin; 3 patients (11%) had a positive latex specific IgE. Of 85 patients who had subsequent anesthesia with a known outcome, 78 (91%) did not have another perioperative allergic reaction. Two of 5 patients with an elevated baseline tryptase level did not tolerate subsequent anesthesia.

CONCLUSION

The majority of patients safely received subsequent anesthesia after comprehensive A/I evaluation for their perioperative allergic reactions; however, improved algorithmic care is needed in the United States. Among ST-positive patients (24%), antibiotics (especially cefazolin) were the most common culprits. An elevated baseline tryptase level was associated with an increased risk of recurrent perioperative allergic reactions.

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

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

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

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

Incidence of and risk factors for perioperative or periprocedural anaphylaxis in the United States from 2005 to 2014

BACKGROUND

The estimated worldwide incidence of perioperative or periprocedural anaphylaxis (PA) is between 1 in 1250 and 1 in 20,000 procedures.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the incidence of PA in the United States and compare patient characteristics and underlying risk factors using a large national database.

METHODS

Using deidentified data from the nationwide inpatient sample from 2005 to 2014, we identified cases of PA through the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes and conducted a retrospective analysis.

RESULTS

Among 35,647,347 surgeries and procedures, there were 5458 (0.015%) PA cases identified. The incidence of PA was 15.3 cases per 100,000 procedures. When compared with controls, PA cases had an increased mortality (3.4% vs 1.4%; P < .001), median length of stay (5 vs 3 days; P < .001), and median hospital cost ($45,155 vs $24,734; P < .001). The age group between 18 and 34 years (odds ratio [OR], 1.34; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.13-1.58; P < .001) and female sex (OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.31-1.49; P < .001) were associated with increased odds of PA. Transplant (OR, 3.35; 95% CI, 2.59-4.34; P < .001), hematologic (OR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.30-2.05; P < .001), vascular (OR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.30-1.67; P < .001), and cardiac (OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.30-1.67; P < .001) procedures were at increased risk for PA. Several comorbidities were associated with PA including chronic pulmonary disease (OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.31-1.51; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

The incidence of PA is 1 in 6531 procedures, with a mortality of 1 in 191,652 procedures. PA has worsening outcomes compared with controls. The risk factors of PA include age, sex, procedure type, and comorbidities.

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

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

Pediatric Patients with Previous Anaphylactic Reactions to General Anesthesia: a Review of Literature, Case Report, and Anesthetic Considerations

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

It is rare to see pediatric patients with previous perioperative anaphylaxis receiving future anesthesia, but it is critical to understand how to choose assessments, interpret the results, and develop a future anesthetic plan.

RECENT FINDINGS

Analysis of the results revealed that patients, at any age, regardless of sex and nationality, and the number of surgeries, have the risk of perioperative anaphylaxis while the risk of allergy increases as patients present multiple surgical events or have a previous history of atopy. 94.7% of pediatric patients with allergy testing after perioperative anaphylaxis tolerated subsequent general anesthesia without complications. Specific IgE tests, basophil activation tests, and skin tests are not available and suitable for all culprits. The early skin test could be considered a supplement for later testing. Drug challenge test is the golden standard but can only be used as the last resort. If general anesthesia is inevitable, avoidance of the culprit and use of alternative agents can help the patients prevent another potential recurrence. Full use of inhalation anesthesia without unnecessary neuromuscular blockade agents and avoidance of latex is recommended when the surgery is urgent or skin tests for children cannot be performed in time. This review summarizes characteristics of perioperative pediatric anaphylaxis, main tests for various drugs, and their sensitivities and specificities as well as recommendations as to how to implement safe anesthesia in the future.

An EAACI position paper on the investigation of perioperative immediate hypersensitivity reactions

Perioperative immediate hypersensitivity reactions are rare. Subsequent allergy investigation is complicated by multiple simultaneous drug exposures, the use of drugs with potent effects and the many differential diagnoses to hypersensitivity in the perioperative setting. The approach to the investigation of these complex reactions is not standardized, and it is becoming increasingly apparent that collaboration between experts in the field of allergy/immunology/dermatology and anaesthesiology is needed to provide the best possible care for these patients. The EAACI task force behind this position paper has therefore combined the expertise of allergists, immunologists and anaesthesiologists. The aims of this position paper were to provide recommendations for the investigation of immediate-type perioperative hypersensitivity reactions and to provide practical information that can assist clinicians in planning and carrying out investigations.

Peri-Operative Anaphylaxis-An Investigational Challenge

Patients with suspected peri-operative anaphylaxis (POP) require thorough investigation to identify underlying trigger(s) and enable safe anesthesia for subsequent surgery. The changing epidemiology of POP has been striking. Previous estimates of the incidence of POP have ranged between 1:6,000 and1:20,000 anesthetics, but more recent data from France and the United Kingdom suggest an estimated incidence of 1:10,000. Other important changes include a change in the hierarchy of well-recognized triggers, with antibiotics (beta-lactams) supplanting neuromuscular blockers (NMB) as the leading cause of POP. The emergence of chlorhexidine, patent blue dye, and teicoplanin as important triggers have also been noteworthy findings. The mainstay of investigation revolves around critical analysis of the time-line of events leading up to anaphylaxis coupled with judicious skin testing. Skin tests have limitations with respect to unknown predictive values for most drugs/agents and therefore, knowledge of background positivity in healthy controls, test characteristics of individual drugs and the use of non-irritant concentrations is essential to avoid both false-positive and false-negative results. Specific IgE assays for individual drugs are available only for a limited number of agents and are not a substitute for skin testing. Acute serum total tryptase has a high specificity and positive predictive value in IgE-mediated POP anaphylaxis but is limited by its moderate sensitivity and negative predictive value. Planning for safe anesthesia in this group of patients is particularly challenging and consequently anesthetists need to be alert to the possibility of repeat episodes of anaphylaxis. Because of the limitations of current investigations for POP, collecting systematic data on the outcome of repeat anesthesia is valuable in validating current investigatory approaches. This paper reviews the changing epidemiology of POP with reference to the main triggers, and the investigation and outcome of subsequent anesthesia.

The Role of KIT Mutations in Anaphylaxis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Gain of function KIT mutations are detected in clonal mast cell diseases, namely mastocytosis and monoclonal mast cell activation syndrome. Timely diagnosis and treatment of these disorders are crucial because of their association with severe and life-threatening anaphylaxis. KIT mutations also have implications for targeted therapies of mast cell disorders. This review article strives to serve as an overview of the role of clonal mast cell disorders in anaphylaxis while elucidating current and future therapies.

RECENT FINDINGS

Clonal mast cell disease has been increasingly diagnosed in patients with severe hymenoptera allergy and those with recurrent unexplained anaphylaxis. The current state of knowledge of the epidemiology, pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment of mastocytosis with a particular focus on anaphylaxis and its triggers which are described in this context. Novel and forthcoming treatments are discussed including the relevance of KIT mutation status. This review provides an overview of the role of KIT mutations in mastocytosis and anaphylaxis, and highlights emerging therapies for mastocytosis, targeting these mutations.

Comparative epidemiology of suspected perioperative hypersensitivity reactions

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

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.

Perioperative drug reactions - practical recommendations for allergy testing and patient management

Background

Allergy testing for perioperative drug reactions poses a particular diagnostic challenge. Neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBA) and antibiotics are among the most common triggers. In principle, however, any drug administered perioperatively is capable of causing a hypersensitivity reaction.

Methods

This article is an overview of selected scientific articles and is based on research in PubMed, specialist databases, and guidelines.

Results

Besides patient's history and laboratory tests (the latter being feasible to only a limited extent), skin tests play a particularly important role. To obtain clinical relevant results, profound knowledge on the best point in time for testing, the drug concentrations to be used, how to perform tests correctly, and the assessment criteria is of special importance.

Conclusion

Final outcomes of the diagnostic procedures should be providing thorough information of the patient about the findings, drugs that should be avoided in the future as well as alternative preparations, and, if necessary, preventive measures to be taken in the event of further surgical interventions.

Basal serum tryptase is not a risk factor for immediate-type drug hypersensitivity during childhood

BACKGROUND

High serum basal tryptase (sBT) levels have been identified as a risk factor for both venom- and food-induced severe allergic reactions. The aim of this study was to compare sBT levels in children with different severity of actual drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) with those of age- and sex-matched controls without any history of DHRs.

METHOD

Patients between 0 and 18 years of age with a history of immediate-type DHRs manifested in 0-6 h after the culprit drug intake were included. Following ENDA (European Network for Drug Allergy) inquiries, patients were evaluated with skin and/or provocation tests to define the actual drug-hypersensitive patients. Serum BT levels were determined for both patients and controls.

RESULTS

Of 345 children, 106 patients (30.7%) [(58.5% male), median age (interquartile range) 8.0 years (4.2-12.2)] were diagnosed as drug hypersensitive. Ninety-eight controls were also included. The sBT levels of drug-hypersensitive patients with and without anaphylaxis and the control group were similar [2.6 (2.0-3.6) μg/l vs. 2.8 (1.6-4.3) μg/l vs. 2.6 (1.8-3.6) μg/l, respectively, (p > 0.05)]. The sBT levels of the patients with sole cutaneous symptoms 2.8 (1.6-4.3) μg/l, mild anaphylaxis 3.0 (1.9-4.9) μg/l, and moderate-to-severe anaphylaxis 2.6 (2.0-3.6) μg/l were also comparable (p > 0.05). The onset of DHRs [those occurring in 1 h (n = 87) or in 1-6 h (n = 19) after the drug intake], positive results with skin tests with the culprit drug, or the classification of the patients according to different age groups [(0-2 years), (2-6 years), (6-12 years), (12-18 years)] did not correlate with sBT levels.

CONCLUSION

The sBT levels in children with actual drug hypersensitivity would not be a risk factor for severe systemic reactions on the contrary to children with allergic reactions to food or insect venom.

General anaesthesia-induced anaphylaxis: impact of allergy testing on subsequent anaesthesia

BACKGROUND

Immunoglobulin E-mediated allergy to drugs and substances used during general anaesthesia as well as non-allergic drug hypersensitivity reactions may account for anaesthesia-induced anaphylaxis. As IgE-mediated anaphylaxis is a potentially life-threatening reaction, identification of the culprit allergen is essential to avoid anaphylaxis recurrence during subsequent general anaesthesia.

OBJECTIVE

To study whether preventive recommendations derived from allergy testing after intraoperative anaphylaxis were followed in subsequent general anaesthesia.

METHODS

Results of standardized allergy testing after anaesthesia-induced anaphylaxis and outcome of subsequent general anaesthesia were analysed retrospectively.

RESULTS

Fifty-three of 107 patients were diagnosed with IgE-mediated allergy to a drug or substance used during general anaesthesia, and 54 patients were test negative. Twenty-eight of 29 allergy patients tolerated subsequent general anaesthesia uneventfully. One patient with cefazolin allergy suffered from anaphylaxis recurrence due to accidental reapplication of cefazolin. Twenty-two of 24 test-negative patients tolerated subsequent general anaesthesia, whereas two patients again developed anaphylaxis despite pre-medication regimens.

CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Our results confirm the practical impact of allergy testing in general anaesthesia-induced anaphylaxis. By identification of the allergen, it is possible to avoid allergic anaphylaxis during subsequent anaesthesia. In most cases, recommended pre-medication seems to prevent the recurrence of non-allergic drug hypersensitivity reactions.

Antibiotics Are the Most Commonly Identified Cause of Perioperative Hypersensitivity Reactions

BACKGROUND

Hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) during the perioperative period are unpredictable and can be life threatening. Prospective studies for the evaluation of perioperative HSRs are lacking, and data on causative agents vary between different studies.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to prospectively determine the success of a comprehensive allergy evaluation plan for patients with HSRs during anesthesia, including identification of a causative agent and outcomes during subsequent anesthesia exposure.

METHODS

All patients referred for a perioperative HSR between November 2013 and March 2015, from a Boston teaching hospital, were evaluated using a standardized protocol with skin testing (ST) within 6 months of HSR. Comprehensive allergy evaluation included collection of patient information, including characteristics of HSR during anesthesia. We reviewed the results of ST and/or test doses for all potential causative medications Event-related tryptase levels were reviewed when available.

RESULTS

Over 17 months, 25 patients completed the comprehensive allergy evaluation. Fifty-two percent (13 of 25) were female with a median age of 52 (interquartile range 43-66) years. The most frequently observed HSR systems were cutaneous (68%), cardiovascular (64%), and pulmonary (24%). A culprit drug, defined as a positive ST, was identified in 36% (9 of 25) of patients. The most common agent identified was cefazolin (6 of 9). After our comprehensive evaluation and management plan, 7 (7 of 8, 88%) patients tolerated subsequent anesthesia.

CONCLUSIONS

Cefazolin was the most commonly identified cause of a perioperative HSR in our study population. Skin testing patients within 6 months of a perioperative HSR may improve the odds of finding a positive result. Tolerance of subsequent anesthesia is generally achieved in patients undergoing our comprehensive evaluation.

2015 update of the evidence base: World Allergy Organization anaphylaxis guidelines

The World Allergy Organization (WAO) Guidelines for the assessment and management of anaphylaxis provide a unique global perspective on this increasingly common, potentially life-threatening disease. Recommendations made in the original WAO Anaphylaxis Guidelines remain clinically valid and relevant, and are a widely accessed and frequently cited resource. In this 2015 update of the evidence supporting recommendations in the Guidelines, new information based on anaphylaxis publications from January 2014 through mid- 2015 is summarized. Advances in epidemiology, diagnosis, and management in healthcare and community settings are highlighted. Additionally, new information about patient factors that increase the risk of severe and/or fatal anaphylaxis and patient co-factors that amplify anaphylactic episodes is presented and new information about anaphylaxis triggers and confirmation of triggers to facilitate specific trigger avoidance and immunomodulation is reviewed. The update includes tables summarizing important advances in anaphylaxis research.