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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04654923).

Flow-based basophil activation test in immediate drug hypersensitivity. An EAACI task force position paper

Diagnosing immediate drug hypersensitivity reactions (IDHRs) can pose a significant challenge and there is an urgent need for safe and reliable tests. Evidence has emerged that the basophil activation test (BAT), an in vitro assay that mirrors the in vivo response, can be a complementary test for many drugs. In this position paper, members of Task Force (TF) "Basophil activation test in the evaluation of Drug Hypersensitivity Reactions" from the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) present the data from a survey about the use and utility of BAT in IDHRs in Europe. The survey results indicate that there is a great interest for using BAT especially for diagnosing IDHRs. However, there are still main needs, mainly in the standardization of the protocols. Subsequently consensus-based recommendations were formulated for: (i) Technical aspects of BAT in IDHRs including type of sample, management of drugs, flow cytometry protocols, interpretation of the results; and (ii) Drug-specific aspects that should be taken into account when performing BAT in relation to betalactams, neuromuscular blocking agents, fluoroquinolones, chlorhexidine, opioids, radio contrast media, chemotherapeutics, biological agents, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, COVID vaccine, and excipients. Moreover, aspects in the evaluation of pediatric population have also been considered. All this indicates that BAT offers the clinician and laboratory a complementary tool for a safe diagnostic for IDHRs, although its place in the diagnostic algorithm depends on the drug class and patient population (phenotype, geography, and age). The standardization of BAT is important for generalizing this method beyond the individual laboratory.

Changing patterns in the epidemiology of drug allergy

Drug allergy (DA) remains a complex and unaddressed problem worldwide that often deprives patients of optimal medication choices and places them at risk for life-threatening reactions. Underdiagnosis and overdiagnosis are common and due to the lack of standardized definitions and biomarkers. The true burden of DA is unknown, and recent efforts in data gathering through electronic medical records are starting to provide emerging patterns around the world. Ten percent of the general population engaged in health care claim to have a DA, and the most common label is penicillin allergy. Up to 20% of emergency room visits for anaphylaxis are due to DA and 15%-20% of hospitalized patients report DA. It is estimated that DA will increase based on the availability and use of new and targeted antibiotics, vaccines, chemotherapies, biologicals, and small molecules, which are aimed at improving patient's options and quality of life. Global and regional variations in the prevalence of diseases such as human immunodeficiency virus and mycobacterial diseases, and the drugs used to treat these infections have an impact on DA. The aim of this review is to provide an update on the global impact of DA by presenting emerging data on drug epidemiology in adult and pediatric populations.

Real-Life Utility of Basophil Activation Test in the Diagnosis of Immediate Hypersensitivity Drug Reactions

INTRODUCTION

The basophil activation test (BAT) is a flow cytometry laboratory technique that assesses the level of activation indicators expressed on the surface of basophils. We conducted a real-life study in a prospective cohort of patients with reported drug hypersensitivity reactions to determine the true relevance of BAT as a diagnostic tool for assessing immediate hypersensitivity reactions to medicines.

METHODS

We prospectively assessed individuals with clinical suspicion of immediate hypersensitivity reactions to drugs over a 2-year period. The allergological evaluation was carried out in accordance with European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) guidance. All patients underwent BAT using the activation marker CD63.

RESULTS

In total 13 patients with 54 reported immediate drug hypersensitivity reactions to medications were included in this study. Twelve were female (92.3%) and one was male (7.70%). The mean ± SD age of the patients was 47.31 ± 19.94 years. Antibiotics were tested in 35.2% (19/54) of patients, corticosteroids in 24.1% (13/54), iodinated contrast medium in 14.8% (8/54), and NSAIDs in 5.6% (3/54). There was no correlation between the BAT results and the age of patients, gender, type of medication, or time interval between the allergic reaction and BAT procedure. The sensitivity of BAT 5% CD63+ basophils to drugs was 97.6%, specificity was 96% for drug allergies, positive predictive value (PPV) was 94.3%, and negative predictive value (NPV) was 95.2%.

CONCLUSIONS

The sensitivity of BAT for drug allergies is limited, but it can nevertheless be very helpful before contemplating provocation testing in cases of life-threatening drug allergies where patients cannot be rechallenged or in cases of medications for which no other tests are available or their results are ambiguous.

Approach for delabeling beta-lactam allergy in children

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

Diagnosis of immediate reactions to amoxicillin: Comparison of basophil activation markers CD63 and CD203c in a prospective study

BACKGROUND

Amoxicillin (AX) combined or not with clavulanic acid (CLV) is frequently involved in IgE-mediated reactions. Drug provocation test (DPT) is considered as the gold standard for diagnosis, although contraindicated in high-risk patients. Basophil activation test (BAT) can help diagnose immediate reactions to beta-lactams, although controversy exists regarding the best activation marker. We have performed a real-life study in a prospective cohort to analyze the real value of BAT as diagnostic tool and the best activation marker, CD63 and CD203c, for the evaluation of immediate reactions to these drugs.

METHODS

We prospectively evaluated patients with a clinical suspicion of immediate reactions after AX or AX-CLV administration during a 6-year period. The allergological work-up was done following the EAACI recommendations. BAT was performed in all patients using CD63 and CD203c as activation markers.

RESULTS

In AX-allergic patients, both activation markers, CD63 and CD203c, showed similar SE values (48.6% and 46.7%, respectively); however, specificity was of 81.1% and 94.6%, respectively, with CD203c showing good positive predictive value and like-hood ratio. In CLV-allergic patients, CD203c showed higher SE (50%) than CD63 (42.9%), maintaining the same value of SP (80%). Combining the results of both markers can slightly increase the sensitivity (51.4% for AX and 54.8% for CLV), although decreasing the specificity (79.7% and 73%, respectively). Interestingly, all patients with an anaphylactic shock showed a positive BAT to CLV using CD203c.

CONCLUSIONS

BAT using CD203c showed a good confirmatory power, especially for AX allergy. Placing BAT as a first step in the diagnostic procedure can help reduce the need of performing a complete allergological work-up in 46.6% of patients, diminishing the risk of reinducing allergic reactions.

Diagnostic utility of basophil CD203c expression in β-lactam allergy

Background: A diagnosis of immunoglobulin E (IgE) mediated reactions to β-lactam (BL) antibiotics is still challenging because of the limited availability of skin-prick test (SPT), and standardization issues, particularly with newer BLs, are still ongoing. Because encouraging data are increasingly emerging in the use of basophil activation tests in the diagnosis of IgE-mediated drug hypersensitivity reactions, in this study, we aimed to determine CD203c expression, a basophil surface marker, in the diagnosis of IgE-mediated hypersensitivity to BL antibiotics. Methods: This study included two groups of subjects. The first group (group 1) (n = 20) included patients with a diagnosis of IgE-mediated allergy to BLs as confirmed through STs or drug provocation tests, and the control group consisted of healthy volunteers (group 2) (n = 24). Expression of CD203c by flow cytometry was studied in samples stimulated by two different concentrations of six different BL antibiotics. A stimulation index ≥ 2 was considered a positive response. Results: The study groups had comparable age and sex distribution. In the entire group, the sensitivity and specificity of CD203c were 29.4% (5 out of 17) and 82.6% (19 out of 23), respectively. When considering the single reactors, two among four patients who were allergic to amoxicillin demonstrated upregulation of CD203c with amoxicillin, which makes 50% sensitivity. The specificity was 100%. Conclusion: Our data demonstrated that assessment of CD203c in the diagnosis of IgE-mediated reactions to BLs provided encouraging results, particularly with amoxicillin allergy. However, this finding needs to be verified in a larger number of cases.

Ten-year outcomes of Perioperative Anaphylaxis Workup Study in Hong Kong (PAWS-HK): Performance of diagnostic modalities

BACKGROUND

Studies on perioperative anaphylaxis (PA) in Asia are lacking. Furthermore, allergy workup for PA has largely been limited to the "silver standard" of skin tests (ST). Using in vitro tests as an adjunct to ST may improve and overcome these diagnostic challenges.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the clinical characteristics and diagnostic tests of patients with suspected PA through the Perioperative Anaphylaxis Workup Study in Hong Kong cohort.

METHODS

Patients with a diagnosis of PA over a 10-year period were recruited into the Perioperative Anaphylaxis Workup Study in Hong Kong. We reviewed the medical records, tryptase elevation, and diagnostic tests including ST, specific immunoglobulin E, and basophil activation tests (BAT).

RESULTS

In 151 patients with PA, diagnosis was reached in three-fourths of the cases (113/151, 74.8%). The most common culprits identified were neuromuscular blocking agents (25.8%), β lactams (17.2%) and chlorhexidine (13.9%). Severe anaphylaxis was associated with female sex, older age, elevated acute tryptase levels, and more cardiovascular manifestations during induction. Skin tests remained the most sensitive diagnostic modality overall (66.2%). BAT showed better performance for chlorhexidine and gelofusine anaphylaxis, with sensitivity of 80.0% and 79.6%, respectively. Specific Immunoglobulin E indicated even higher sensitivity (95.2%) than did ST (85.0%) and BAT (80.0%) for chlorhexidine anaphylaxis but performed poorly for other drugs.

CONCLUSION

Neuromuscular blocking agents remain the most common culprit in PA. There was a higher prevalence of gelofusine anaphylaxis in our cohort than was seen in the literature. Skin tests remain the most sensitive testing modality. In vitro tests for chlorhexidine and gelofusine showed promising results, but more studies to further elucidate its use are warranted.

A case series of perioperative anaphylaxis to cefazolin during kidney transplant and review of literature

BACKGROUND

Intraoperative anaphylaxis is a life threatening and multiorgan system hypersensitivity reaction that frequently leads to cessation of operations. Despite the incidence of Cefazolin allergy being on the rise, the cases of anaphylaxis to Cefazolin during surgeries and its management are seldom reported.

CASE PRESENTATION

We present two patients with no known beta-lactam allergy and end stage kidney disease who received perioperative intravenous Cefazolin for planned deceased kidney transplant surgery at our academic medical center. Both patients developed anaphylaxes approximately three minutes following the administration of the antibiotic and experienced severe, refractory hypotension that required the use of vasopressors. The severity of the anaphylactic reactions resulted in the cessation of the transplant operation and multiple days of intensive care unit admission.

CONCLUSION

Peri-or intraoperative anaphylaxis to Cefazolin is on the rise and its consequences in transplant candidates are even more dire given the pre-existing end organ failure, financial burden for health care system, potential loss of donor organs, and emotional burden for recipients and their families. These are the first two cases of reported Cefazolin-induced anaphylaxis that actually resulted in aborting the kidney transplant operation. In addition, cases of previously reported Type 1 hypersensitivity to Cefazolin as prophylaxis for operations were reviewed and the allergy workups were discussed.

Drug hypersensitivity, in vitro tools, biomarkers, and burden with COVID-19 vaccines

Hypersensitivity reactions to drugs are increasing worldwide. They display a large degree of variability in the immunological mechanisms involved, which impacts both disease severity and the optimal diagnostic procedure. Therefore, drug hypersensitivity diagnosis relies on both in vitro and in vivo assessments, although most of the methods are not well standardized. Moreover, several biomarkers can be used as valuable parameters for precision medicine that provide information on the endotypes, diagnosis, prognosis, and prediction of drug hypersensitivity development, as well on the identification of therapeutic targets and treatment efficacy monitoring. Furthermore, in the last 2 years, the SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus) pandemic has had an important impact on health system, leading us to update approaches on how to manage hypersensitivity reactions to drugs used for its treatment and on COVID-19 (Coronavirus disease) vaccines used for its prevention. This article reviews recent advances in these 3 areas regarding drug hypersensitivity: in vitro tools for drug hypersensitivity diagnosis, recently identified biomarkers that could guide clinical decision making and management of hypersensitivity reactions to drugs and vaccines used for COVID-19.

Antibiotic Allergy De-Labeling: A Pathway against Antibiotic Resistance

Antibiotics are one of the most frequently prescribed drugs. Unfortunately, they also are the most common cause for self-reported drug allergy, limiting the use of effective therapies. However, evidence shows that more than 90% of patients labeled as allergic to antibiotics are not allergic. Importantly, the label of antibiotic allergy, whether real or not, constitutes a major public health problem as it directly impacts antimicrobial stewardship: it has been associated with broad-spectrum antibiotic use, often resulting in the emergence of bacterial resistance. Therefore, an accurate diagnosis is crucial for de-labeling patients who claim to be allergic but are not really allergic. This review presents allergy methods for achieving successful antibiotic allergy de-labeling. Patient clinical history is often inaccurately reported, thus not being able to de-label most patients. In vitro testing offers a complementary approach but it shows limitations. Immunoassay for quantifying specific IgE is the most used one, although it gives low sensitivity and is limited to few betalactams. Basophil activation test is not validated and not available in all centers. Therefore, true de-labeling still relies on in vivo tests including drug provocation and/or skin tests, which are not risk-exempt and require specialized healthcare professionals for results interpretation and patient management. Moreover, differences on the pattern of antibiotic consumption cause differences in the diagnostic approach among different countries. A multidisciplinary approach is recommended to reduce the risks associated with the reported penicillin allergy label.