Drug Hypersensitivity Reactions

Knowledge mapping and global trends of drug hypersensitivity from 2013 to 2023: A bibliometric analysis

BACKGROUND

Drug hypersensitivity is a major global public health issue with a significant increase in prevalence in populations. Here, we provide a deep insight into the frontier hotspot and future direction in the field of drug hypersensitivity.

METHODS

A knowledge map is portrayed based on publications related to drug hypersensitivity from Web of Science Core Collection using CiteSpace. Co-occurrence relationships of countries, institutes, authors, journals, references, and keywords are constructed. According to the co-occurrence relationships, hotspots and future trends are overviewed.

RESULTS

The United States ranked first in the world and China with the second highest publications was the only developing country. Torres, Mayorga, and Blanca were highly productive authors. Harvard University was the institution with the most research publications. Keywords co-occurrence analysis suggested applications in emerging causes, potential mechanisms, and clinical diagnosis as the research hotspots and development frontiers.

CONCLUSION

Research on drug hypersensitivity is in a rapid development stage and an emerging trend in reports of anaphylaxis to polyethylene glycols is identified. Developing algorithms for understanding the standardization process of culprit drugs, clinical manifestations, and diagnostic methods will be the focus of future direction. In addition, a better understanding of the mechanisms to culprit drugs with immunological precise phenotypic definitions and high-throughput platforms is needed.

Drug-induced hypersensitivity reactions in a Lebanese outpatient population: A decade-long retrospective analysis (2012-2021)

Background

Drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) are becoming more common as a result of increasing prevalence and case complexity. Allergists and clinical immunologists worldwide are challenged daily to adequately diagnose and manage these reactions. Data in the literature regarding DHR outpatient consultations are scarce worldwide, limited in the Middle East, and currently unavailable in Lebanon.

Objective

This retrospective study aimed to evaluate the characteristics of all reported DHRs over 10 years in a tertiary-care allergy clinic in Lebanon.

Methods

We conducted a decade-long (2012-21) retrospective analysis of the archived medical records of patients with a history of DHRs. Demographics, clinical history, diagnostic tools, and characteristics of the DHRs were collected and analyzed.

Results

A total of 758 patients experienced DHRs to therapeutic molecules provided for ambulatory care. Our results identified 72 medications. The most frequently implicated drug classes included β-lactam antibiotics (53.8%), followed closely by nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (48.9%). Of the 758 patients, 32.6% reported DHRs to multiple molecules, and 11.8% reported concomitant DHRs to 1 or several molecules provided in the perioperative setting. Of those, opioids and neuromuscular blocking agents were the 2 most common therapeutic classes. Furthermore, we evaluated the cross-reactivity between molecules of the same class. In neuromuscular blocking agents, rocuronium and cisatracurium were the most commonly cross-reactive, and for opioids, the most common association we recorded was with morphine and pethidine.

Conclusion

Our findings constitute the first step toward a more comprehensive evaluation of the clinical characteristics of DHRs in Lebanon.

Dl-3-n-butylphthalide induced anaphylactic shock: a case report

Dl-3-n-butylphthalide (DL-NBP) has good neuroprotective function and is safe for use in patients with acute ischaemic stroke. DL-NBP induced anaphylactic shock is rarely reported. Here we describe the case of a 75-year-old woman who received an injection of DL-NBP (25 mg/100 mL intravenously guttae, twice daily) for acute ischaemic stroke. Approximately 5 min after the DL-NBP injection was administered, the patient developed a decrease in blood pressure and an increase in heart rate along with skin pruritus, mottlement of the lower limbs, discomfort, and the desire to defecate, following which DL-NBP was discontinued immediately. The patient recovered with antiallergic therapy and could tolerate further treatment. We emphasise that the increased use of DL-NBP in recent year raises the importance of attention to potential allergies in clinical use, especially in patients with a history of allergies to multiple drugs.

Safety and outcomes of "at-home self-provocation tests" in patients with mild nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug-induced urticaria/angioedema

BACKGROUND

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) hypersensitivity is common; however, many patients do not receive an accurate diagnosis and are using unnecessary alternative drugs or have medication restrictions.

OBJECTIVE

To establish a protocol for provocation tests that can be performed safely and effectively at home to give patients an accurate diagnosis, whereas also delabeling NSAID hypersensitivity.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the medical records of 147 patients with NSAID hypersensitivity. All patients had NSAID-induced urticaria/angioedema with less than 10% body surface area skin involvement. One specialist developed the protocol through history taking and chart review. If NSAID hypersensitivity was confirmed, an oral provocation test was performed to confirm the safe alternative medications (group A). If it was undetermined, an oral provocation test was performed to confirm the diagnosis and alternative medications (group B). All oral provocation tests were performed by patients in their homes according to the protocol.

RESULTS

Approximately 26% of group A patients had urticaria or angioedema symptoms with alternative drugs, whereas the remaining 74% was safe. In group B, 34% of the patients were diagnosed with having NSAID hypersensitivity. However, 61% did not respond to the culprit drug; therefore, NSAID hypersensitivity had been misdiagnosed. During this at-home self-provocation test, no severe hypersensitivity reactions occurred.

CONCLUSION

Many patients originally suspected of having NSAID hypersensitivity were confirmed to have been misdiagnosed. We successfully conducted an effective and safe at-home self-provocation test.

Allergic Diseases as a Clinical Phenotype Marker in Patients with Common Variable <bold>Immunodeficiency</bold>

INTRODUCTION

Patients with common variable immunodeficiency (CVID) have been shown to be more predisposed to develop allergic diseases because of mucosal immune defects and immune dysregulation. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence, and clinical and laboratory characteristics of various allergic diseases in patients with CVID.

METHODS

The study included patients aged ≥18 years who were followed up for a diagnosis of CVID. Patients were separated into 5 groups according to the clinical phenotypic characteristics of lymphoproliferation, autoimmunity, gastrointestinal diseases, allergic diseases, and malignancy. Atopic dermatitis (AD), drug hypersensitivity reaction (DHR), allergic rhinitis (AR), and asthma were accepted as allergic diseases.

RESULTS

The most commonly seen clinical phenotypes were lymphoproliferation in 41 (48.8%) patients and allergic diseases in 31 (37%). AD was determined in 2 (2.4%) patient, DHR in 5 (6%), AR in 7 (8.3%), and asthma in 21 (25%). The delay in diagnosis of patients with allergic disease was determined to be shorter compared to those without allergic disease (p = 0.042). Serum total immunoglobulin E level, CD19+ B cell, switched memory B cell, and natural killer cell counts were determined to be higher in the CVID patients with allergic disease compared to those without (p = 0.007, p = 0.022, p = 0.023, p = 0.017, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Allergic diseases should be considered as a marker of clinical phenotype in CVID because of the clinical and immunological differences. Early diagnosis and treatment of allergic diseases in patients with CVID can improve quality of life.

Immune Reactions in Major Types of Oncological Treatment

In recent years, there has been a noticeable development in oncological treatment, including chemotherapy and biological treatment. Despite their significant effectiveness, they are not free from side effects, such as allergic and dermatological reactions. These reactions can vary in severity and outcome, including potential death. Examples, among others, are type I-IV hypersensitivity reactions of various origins and skin reactions including rashes, itching and redness, but also severe cutaneous syndromes. Due to the therapy used, these may include Stevens-Johnson syndrome, toxic epidermal necrolysis, drug rash with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms, drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome and acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis. In some cases, it is necessary to interrupt therapy, which may result in a poorer outcome and shorten the patient's survival. This paper reviews various types of research documents published since 2016. It aims to systematize the latest knowledge and highlight the need for further research into ways to avoid adverse reactions.

[Drug allergy: Fundamental aspects in diagnosis and treatment.]

BACKGROUND

Any substance used as a treatment for any disease can produce harmful or unpleasant events called adverse drug reactions (ADRs). They are due to inherent biological effects of the drug and are caused by immunological and non-immunological mechanisms.

OBJECTIVES

To describe the immunological mechanisms of hypersensitivity reactions (HSR) to drugs, their epidemiology, risk factors, classification, clinical manifestations, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis.

METHODS

A review of the most current literature in English and Spanish was carried out, in the main databases, related to the HSR of various drug groups.

RESULTS

This study describes the terms used to define ADRs and HSRs, their classification and clinical manifestations, current diagnostic tools, treatment algorithms and prognosis of the most frequently used medications and with the highest prevalence of reported adverse events.

CONCLUSION

ADRs are a challenging entity, with a complex pathophysiology that has not been fully understood. Its approach requires a careful consideration since not all drugs have validated tests for their diagnosis nor a specific treatment. When indicating the use of any drug, the severity of the disease, the availability of other treatments and the potential risks of developing future adverse events should always be taken into consideration.

Aspirin desensitization in nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory exacerbated respiratory disease: The first prospective cohort in Chile

Background

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory exacerbated respiratory disease (N-ERD) is characterized by the Samter triad: chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, asthma, and nonallergic hypersensitivity to NSAIDs. Its diagnosis is based on a complete clinical history and an aspirin (ASA) challenge test. Medical treatments include biological drugs and ASA desensitization.

Objective

This study aims to evaluate the clinical response of patients with N-ERD undergoing functional endoscopic surgery (FES), followed by ASA desensitization and maintenance treatment, being the first prospective cohort study carried out in Chile.

Methods

We conducted 1-year follow-up of 12 patients with N-ERD treated with FES, desensitization, and maintenance with ASA. For each control, the medication score, sinonasal symptomatology (SNOT-22), PEF (peak expiratory flow), nasal polyposis (Lildholdt score), and the appearance of adverse effects were recorded. Computed tomography (CT) of the paranasal cavities was performed at baseline and at the 12-month follow-up to calculate the Lund-Mackay score.

Results

Patients presented a reduction of SNOT-22 after the FES, which was maintained at 12 months (p = 0.002); the symptoms that showed the greatest reduction were feeling embarrassed and nasal obstruction. The Lildholdt score was also significantly reduced (p = 0.001); in only three patients, the nasal polyps recurred, and all were small. The PEF showed a slight nonsignificant increase of 3.3%. In total, 75% of patients had an adverse effect, the most frequent being abdominal pain (66.7%), but none of the 12 patients required discontinuation of aspirin treatment in 1-year follow-up. The Lund-Mackay score had a significant reduction of 6.6 points (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

ASA desensitization is safe and effective in reducing upper and lower respiratory symptoms in patients with N-ERD and delays the reappearance of nasal polyps, although it is not exempt from adverse effects, with the vast majority being mild.

Hypersensitivity reactions to small molecule drugs

Drug hypersensitivity reactions induced by small molecule drugs encompass a broad spectrum of adverse drug reactions with heterogeneous clinical presentations and mechanisms. These reactions are classified into allergic drug hypersensitivity reactions and non-allergic drug hypersensitivity reactions. At present, the hapten theory, pharmacological interaction with immune receptors (p-i) concept, altered peptide repertoire model, and altered T-cell receptor (TCR) repertoire model have been proposed to explain how small molecule drugs or their metabolites induce allergic drug hypersensitivity reactions. Meanwhile, direct activation of mast cells, provoking the complement system, stimulating or inhibiting inflammatory reaction-related enzymes, accumulating bradykinin, and/or triggering vascular hyperpermeability are considered as the main factors causing non-allergic drug hypersensitivity reactions. To date, many investigations have been performed to explore the underlying mechanisms involved in drug hypersensitivity reactions and to search for predictive and preventive methods in both clinical and non-clinical trials. However, validated methods for predicting and diagnosing hypersensitivity reactions to small molecule drugs and deeper insight into the relevant underlying mechanisms are still limited.

Case report: Uncommon immune-mediated skin disease involving systemic disorders in dogs

Case 1, a 6-year-old, spayed female Pug, presented with severe systemic urticaria, edema, and erythema. The dog had received a famotidine injection as a treatment for repeated vomiting in another hospital. On physical examination, hyperthermia was observed. Moderate pancytopenia, hypoalbuminemia, and increased CRP and D-dimer were also observed in blood tests. Hyposthenuric proteinuria, pulmonary interstitial infiltration, and hepatomegaly were found in other tests. In the histology of the skin, dermal edema and infiltration of inflammatory cells were observed. Therefore, she was diagnosed with acute systemic hypersensitivity. Case 2, a 13-month-old, neutered male Pembroke welsh corgi, presented with severe and patchy systemic ulcerative skin lesions. The dog had a history of soft feces and pain around the anus 2 days before. Thrombocytopenia, and increased CRP and D-dimer were observed in blood tests. In histology, epidermal necrolysis, separation of the epidermis and dermis, and infiltration of inflammatory cells were observed. Therefore, he was diagnosed with an immune-mediated disease with necrolysis dermatitis. Case 3, a 12-year-old, spayed female Pomeranian, presented with severe systemic alopecia, pustule, and crust on the skin. The dog had received an infection treatment from a local hospital. Severe regenerative anemia (hematocrit 15.3%, negative saline agglutination test, negative slide agglutination test, negative Coomb's test, prominent spherocytes) elevated liver enzymes, and increased CRP and D-dimer were observed in blood tests. On histopathology of the skin, pustules, acantholytic cells, and inflammatory cells were observed in the keratin layer of the epithelium. Therefore, she was diagnosed with Pemphigus foliaceus concurrent with immune-mediated hemolytic anemia. The 3 cases were diagnosed with fatal immune-mediated skin disease concurrently with hematological and systemic abnormalities. All the cases were treated with immune-suppressive drugs, prednisolone, and cyclosporine. In cases 2 and 3, the dogs also received human intravenous immunoglobulin as an immune modulator. The treatment was successful with significant improvements in all the 3 cases.

MRGPRX2 and Adverse Drug Reactions

Many adverse reactions to therapeutic drugs appear to be allergic in nature, and are thought to be triggered by patient-specific Immunoglobulin E (IgE) antibodies that recognize the drug molecules and form complexes with them that activate mast cells. However, in recent years another mechanism has been proposed, in which some drugs closely associated with allergic-type events can bypass the antibody-mediated pathway and trigger mast cell degranulation directly by activating a mast cell-specific receptor called Mas-related G protein-coupled receptor X2 (MRGPRX2). This would result in symptoms similar to IgE-mediated events, but would not require immune priming. This review will cover the frequency, severity, and dose-responsiveness of allergic-type events for several drugs shown to have MRGPRX2 agonist activity. Surprisingly, the analysis shows that mild-to-moderate events are far more common than currently appreciated. A comparison with plasma drug levels suggests that MRGPRX2 mediates many of these mild-to-moderate events. For some of these drugs, then, MRGPRX2 activation may be considered a regular and predictable feature after administration of high doses.

Methylprednisolone-induced anaphylaxis diagnosed by intradermal skin test: a case report

Background

Glucocorticoids rarely cause anaphylaxis. Common methods for the determination of allergens include in vivo skin prick test (SPT) and intradermal skin test (IDST) and the in vitro basophil activation test (BAT). However, to our knowledge, the best strategy for diagnosing glucocorticoid-induced anaphylaxis has not been elucidated.

Case presentation

A 10-year-old boy was admitted to our hospital because of 2 weeks of fever and arthralgia. He had not been treated with glucocorticoids before, including methylprednisolone (mPSL). He was suspected to have bacterial myositis and was treated with ceftriaxone. However, his symptoms persisted for > 2 weeks. Autoinflammatory arthritis was suspected, and he was treated with mPSL sodium succinate (MPS) pulse therapy (30 mg/kg). After 15 min of mPSL injection, he had wheezing and generalized wheal formation with decreased oxygen saturation. As anaphylaxis was suspected, mPSL was discontinued, and olopatadine and oxygen were administered. The symptoms improved considerably without the use of epinephrine and disappeared in 30 min. One month after discharge, SPT, IDST, and BAT were performed without discontinuing his prescribed oral prednisolone. SPTs for MPS, hydrocortisone sodium succinate (HCS), prednisolone sodium succinate (PSS), dexamethasone sodium phosphate (DSP), and betamethasone sodium phosphate (BSP) were negative. IDSTs for MPS, HCS, and PSS were positive, whereas those for DSP and BSP were negative. By contrast, BATs for MPS, HCS, and PSS were negative. Although glucocorticoid-induced hypersensitivity caused by nonmedicinal ingredients such as lactose, carboxymethylcellulose, polyethylene glycol, and hexylene glycol has been reported; the glucocorticoids tested in this patient did not contain any of these nonmedicinal ingredients. As the glucocorticoids that were positive on IDST share a succinate ester, this might have caused MPS-induced anaphylaxis.

Conclusions

We report the case of MPS-induced anaphylaxis diagnosed by IDST but not BAT. In case reports of glucocorticoid-induced anaphylaxis in the literature, most patients were diagnosed with SPT or IDST. These results suggest that BAT should be considered when IDST and SPT are negative. Further studies are necessary to clarify the best strategy for diagnosing glucocorticoid-induced anaphylaxis.