Morphine and pholcodine-specific IgE have limited utility in the diagnosis of anaphylaxis to benzylisoquinolines

Could Artificial Intelligence Prevent Intraoperative Anaphylaxis? Reference Review and Proof of Concept

Drugs and various medical substances have been used for many decades to diagnose or treat diseases. Procedures like surgery and anesthesia (either local or general) use different pharmacological products during these events. In most of the cases, the procedure is safe and the physician performs the technique without incidents. Although they are safe for use, these substances (including drugs) may have adverse effects, varying from mild ones to life-threatening reactions in a minority of patients. Artificial intelligence may be a useful tool in approximating the risk of anaphylaxis before undertaking a medical procedure. This material presents these undesirable responses produced by medical products from a multidisciplinary point of view. Moreover, we present a proof of concept for using artificial intelligence as a possible guardship against intraoperative anaphylaxis.

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.

Assessing cross-reactivity to neuromuscular blocking agents by skin and basophil activation tests in patients with neuromuscular blocking agent anaphylaxis

BACKGROUND

Following diagnosis of neuromuscular blocking agent (NMBA) anaphylaxis, identifying safe alternatives for subsequent anaesthesia is critical. A patient with anaphylaxis to one NMBA can also have an allergic reaction to other NMBAs (cross-reactivity). Whilst drug provocation testing is standard for identifying or excluding allergy, there is significant risk. In vitro, after an allergen activates basophils, basophils express surface activation markers that can be measured by basophil activation testing (BAT). We compared cross-reactivity between NMBAs assessed by BAT against that by skin testing.

METHODS

All patients attending an anaesthetic allergy clinic in Sydney, Australia between May 2017 and July 2018 diagnosed with NMBA anaphylaxis qualified for this study comparing intradermal skin tests and BAT with a panel of NMBAs (rocuronium, vecuronium, pancuronium, suxamethonium, cisatracurium).

RESULTS

Of the 61 patients participating, sensitisation on skin testing and on BAT completely matched in only nine patients (15%). Sensitisation was not in agreement for pancuronium, cisatracurium and rocuronium, but was in agreement for vecuronium and suxamethonium. Nine patients with negative skin tests subsequently tolerated cisatracurium, and one false positive on BAT to cisatracurium was detected.

CONCLUSIONS

The utility of BAT in identifying safe NMBAs for subsequent anaesthesia needs further evaluation. BAT detects a different cross-reactivity profile to skin tests. Negative skin testing and BAT might increase confidence in performing drug provocation testing, but this and follow-up of subsequent anaesthesia in our cohort is necessary to determine the clinical significance of BAT sensitisation.