75% negative skin test results in patients with suspected hypersensitivity to beta-lactam antibiotics: Influencing factors and interpretation of test results

[Penicillin allergy-Truth or duty?]

The beta-lactam antibiotics are some of the safest and best-tolerated antibiotic agents; however, many patients have reported allergies against penicillin. All beta-lactam antibiotics are only restrictively prescribed for these patients and alternative antibiotics are increasingly given, which carries the risk of negative clinical results and socioeconomic sequelae; however, over 95% of patients who reported an allergy to penicillin show a negative result in the allergy tests for penicillin and this antibiotic can safely be prescribed. The use of sensitive and specific instruments for identification of false penicillin allergies should be an important topic within the framework of antibiotic stewardship. Anesthesists can play a central role in the reduction of the enormous individual and public health burden associated with the classification of penicillin allergy by taking an appropriate medical history and a risk stratification for the identification of patients with a penicillin allergy. This overview article presents a possible delabelling algorithm within the framework of the clarification of a beta-lactam antibiotic allergy. The focus is on a structured allergy anamnesis using the penicillin allergy, five or fewer years ago, anaphylaxis/angioedema, severe cutaneous adverse reaction (SCAR) and treatment required for allergy episode (PEN-FAST) score.

Lymphocyte transformation tests predict delayed-type allergy to piperacillin/tazobactam in patients with cystic fibrosis

BACKGROUND

Antibiotic treatment is crucial for patients with chronic bacterial infections. Suspected drug allergies often lead to inconsistent therapies and challenging clinical management for patients and caregivers. The objective of this study was to evaluate the value of lymphocyte transformation tests in comparison to skin tests for the prediction of delayed-type allergic reactions.

METHODS

This prospective, observational study tested the diagnostic value of skin prick tests, intradermal tests (reading: 15 min and 72 h) and lymphocyte transformations tests for the prediction of allergic reactions in CF patients with physician reported allergy to piperacillin/tazobactam, meropenem and ceftazidime. The tests were performed directly before a 14d intravenous drug challenge.

RESULTS

We performed 33 drug challenges in 29 subjects. 21 drug challenges were negative (63 %); 12 lead to a reaction (37 %), of those 2 were immediate and 10 were delayed-type. 100 % of the skin prick tests were negative. 97 % (33/34) of the intradermal tests with early reading and 100 % of the intradermal tests with late reading yielded negative results. 5/11 patients who experienced a delayed-type reaction during the drug challenge had a positive lymphocyte transformations test. All 17 patients who did not react had a negative lymphocyte transformations test. For piperacillin/tazobactam, 4/5 patients who experienced a delayed-type reaction during the drug challenge had positive lymphocyte transformations tests. Hence, for piperacillin/tazobactam, the sensitivity of the lymphocyte transformation test for prediction of reactions was 80.0 % and the specificity 100 %.

CONCLUSION

We demonstrate that the lymphocyte transformation test predicts delayed-type allergy to piperacillin/tazobactam in contrast to skin tests.

Performance Characteristics of Basophil Activation Tests for Diagnosing Penicillin Allergy: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Approximately 10% of the global population identify themselves as penicillin allergic, yet 90% are not truly allergic and could safely tolerate penicillin. There is no simple way to identify these people. Current in vitro diagnostics include specific immunoglobulin E (with a sensitivity of 19% and specificity of 97%) and a basophil activation test (BAT) with undefined sensitivity and specificity.

OBJECTIVE

To define the sensitivity and specificity of BAT in the diagnosis of penicillin allergy METHODS: We searched PubMed and EMBASE from inception to April 2, 2023, for original studies evaluating the performance characteristics of BAT for penicillin allergy in adults. Study selection, data extraction, risk of bias, assessment with QUADAS-2 tool, certainty assessment with Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology were performed independently, in duplicate. Meta-analysis was performed using Reitsma methodology.

RESULTS

Twenty-two studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Twelve used the same positive threshold giving a summary point sensitivity 51% (95% confidence interval [95% CI]46%-56%) and specificity 89% (95% CI 85%-93%). Significant risk of bias was identified owing to patient selection. GRADE certainty of evidence rated sensitivity very low due to imprecision and specificity as low. There was great heterogeneity in methods used. Use of 1,000 basophils per test did not improve performance above 500 basophils.

CONCLUSIONS

BAT sensitivity is highly variable across studies and remains too low to be considered as a routine element of clinical practice. BAT specificity is not as good as specific immunoglobulin E in penicillin allergy diagnosis. Significant further work is required in this field before clinical application of BAT in routine practice.

The state and consideration for skin test of β-lactam antibiotics in pediatrics

β-lactam antibiotics are the most frequently used drugs and the most common drugs that cause allergic reactions in pediatrics. The occurrence of some allergic reactions can be predicted by skin testing, especially severe adverse reactions such as anaphylactic shock. Thus, penicillin and cephalosporin skin tests are widely used to predict allergic reactions before medication in pediatrics. However, false-positive results from skin tests were more often encountered in pediatrics than in adults. In fact, many children labeled as allergic to β-lactam are not allergic to the antibiotic, leading to the use of alternative antibiotics, which are less effective and more toxic, and the increase of antibiotic resistance. There has been controversy over whether β-lactam antibiotics should be tested for skin allergies before application in children. Based on the great controversy in the implementation of β-lactam antibiotic skin tests, especially the controversial cephalosporin skin tests in pediatrics, the mechanism and reasons of anaphylaxis to β-lactam antibiotics, the significance of β-lactam antibiotic skin tests, the current state of β-lactam antibiotic skin tests at home and abroad, and the problems of domestic and international skin tests were analyzed to determine a unified standard of β-lactam antibiotic skin tests in pediatrics to prevent and decrease adverse drug reactions, avoid waste of drugs, and a large amount of manpower and material resource consumption.

Advances in immunoglobulin E mediated antibiotic allergy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this review is to identify recent advances in our understanding and management of immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated antibiotic allergy.

RECENT FINDINGS

Antibiotics remain a leading cause of fatal anaphylaxis reported to the FDA. However, recent advances have defined the features of adult and pediatric patients without true IgE-mediated allergy or any mechanism of anaphylaxis when tested. This has created opportunities to use direct challenges to disprove these allergies at the point-of-care and improves antibiotic stewardship. Additional advances have highlighted cross-reactive structural considerations within classes of drugs, in particular the R1 side-chain of cephalosporins, that appear to drive true immune-mediated cross-reactivity. Further advances in risk-based approaches to skin testing, phenotyping, and re-exposure challenges are needed to standardize antibiotic allergy evaluation.

SUMMARY

Recent advances in defining true IgE-mediated drug allergy have helped to identify patients unlikely to be skin-test positive. In turn, this has identified patients who can skip skin testing and proceed to direct ingestion challenge using history risk-based approaches. The ability to identify the small number of patients with true IgE-mediated allergy and study their natural history over time, as well as the vast majority without true allergy will facilitate important and novel mechanistic discoveries.

Intradermal testing increases the accuracy of an immediate-type cefaclor hypersensitivity diagnosis

Background

Hypersensitivity reactions to cefaclor have increased in accordance with its frequent use. However, only limited data are available on the diagnostic value of skin tests for these conditions, particularly intradermal tests (IDTs).

Objective

To evaluate the clinical usefulness of IDT compared to the ImmunoCAP test in patients with cefaclor-induced immediate-type hypersensitivity.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective chart review from January 2010 to June 2020 of adult subjects from 2 tertiary hospitals in Korea with a history of suspected immediate-type hypersensitivity to cefaclor, and who had undergone ImmunoCAP and IDT.

Results

Overall, 131 subjects diagnosed with cefaclor hypersensitivity were included in the analysis. Fifty-nine patients (59/131, 45.04%) were positive in both IDT and ImmunoCAP. Fifty-four (54/131, 41.22%) and 6 (6/131, 4.58%) subjects showed positive results only with IDT or the ImmunoCAP test, respectively. Twelve subjects (12/131, 9.16%) were negative by both tests but reacted positively in a drug provocation test. The frequency of IDT positivity was similar regardless of the severity of reactions. However, positivity of ImmunoCAP was lower in subjects with mild reactions compared to those with anaphylaxis. Regarding the diagnosis of cefaclor hypersensitivity, the overall sensitivity of IDT and ImmunoCAP was 0.863 and 0.496, respectively while the specificity was 1. The combination of IDT and ImmunoCAP further increased this sensitivity to 0.908.

Conclusion

IDT was more sensitive than ImmunoCAP for the diagnosis of cefaclor allergy, regardless of the severity of the hypersensitivity reaction. Therefore, we recommend a combination of IDT and ImmunoCAP for the diagnosis of cefaclor hypersensitivity.